Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH.

HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. W. DUDLEY WARD) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
"I have, received with great satisfaction the. loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Birmingham (Moseley Division), in the room of Sir HALLEWELL ROGERS (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cardiff Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Harrogate Gas Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Lancashire County Council (Drainage) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill (by Order),

Swansea Gas Bill (by Order),

Westgate and Birchington Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police, sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173a apply to all such Bills:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That four be the quorum:

Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of the Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing police, sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed, and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Sir John Baird.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Mr. Betterton, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Edward Kelly, Major McMicking, Sir George Croydon Marks, Colonel Mildmay, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Major O'Neill, Sir William Pearce, and Mr. John William Wilson nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. FORREST: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has issued a circular asking that each employé of the Ministry shall state whether he belongs to any ex-service men's organisation; whether he is willing to relinquish this connection; if not, what reasons actuate him; and whether, if the facts as stated are correct, he will inform the House of his motives in making this inquiry?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am not aware of the issue of any such circular. Membership of ex-service organisations is enjoyed by a large proportion of the male staff of the Ministry and is not in any way discouraged.

TEMPORARY PENSIONS.

Mr. FORREST: 3.
asked the number of cases in which temporary pensions have been granted since the formation of the Department and not renewed on expiry?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of temporary disablement pensions granted by the Ministry which have terminated otherwise than by the death of the pensioner is approximately 100,000.

LABOUR CORPS (SERGEANT J. P. WICKS).

Captain COOTE: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the appeal of Sergeant J. P. Wicks, No. 288,874, Labour Corps, Colne Villa, Colchester, in respect of loss of eyesight, was heard by the appeal tribunal, Sloane Square, on the 11th November, 1920; that
the tribunal agreed with Mr. Wicks to abide by the decision of an independent specialist; that there is every reason to believe that the decision of this specialist was favourable to Mr. Wicks; that nevertheless the tribunal rejected his appeal; that the soldier lost his eyesight while in the Army, has a wife and six children, and is practically destitute; and whether he can recommend any source whence assistance may be rendered to the soldier and say what remedy the latter has against the proceedings of the appeal tribunal?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Pension Appeal Tribunal is independent of the Ministry of Pensions, and I have no control over its proceedings. I am informed by the tribunal that, in the case mentioned in this question, a specialist's report was obtained and considered in conjunction with other relevant evidence, this procedure being in accordance with their statutory regulations. In reply to the last part of the question, I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the decisions of the tribunal are declared by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, to be final.

Captain COOTE: Are we to understand that in a case where the appeal tribunal deliberately breaks a bargain come to with the appellant, the appellant has no redress whatever against such procedure? Is there not a court of reference to the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I have no control over the appeal tribunal, I am sorry to say.

Mr. SHORT: Upon what grounds has the case been referred to the appeal tribunal? Is it because the Ministry have no power in the case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all. I think that the tribunal does very good work in this way, that if there is any element of doubt the case is sent to it that the doubt may be removed.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Is there a decrease or an increase in the number of cases referred to this tribunal?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that there has been no increase.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Dr. M'DONALD: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider his attitude towards ex-service men who have been certified as suffering from tuberculosis shortly after their discharge from the Army on account of being unfit for further military service, and now considered ineligible for pension; whether he is aware that, while the health of some men is improved by service, the health of others is deteriorated, thus paving the way to tuberculosis; and whether cases of this character will be dealt with more sympathetically, notwithstanding the decision of any medical board examining these men months after their discharge?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that claims to pension on the ground of tuberculosis are unsympathetically considered. If the tuberculosis develops within a short period of discharge the disablement, is generally admitted to be either attributable to or aggravated by service, and even where the disease does not develop until after a considerable period the circumstances of the man's military service, and of its effect on his health, are carefully examined. If the Ministry are unable to accept his claim the man is advised of his right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

HOME TREATMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that great difficulty is caused to men drawing allowances when under treatment at home but unable to work in finding persons in responsible positions to witness the form M.P.M.S.D. 29, as the witnesses almost invariably understand that in signing the document they are vouching for the accuracy of the man's statement; and whether, in view of the undertaking on the form that the pensioner will at once notify the local committee if he undertakes paid work, the Ministry of Pensions will limit the obligation to complete the form every week to those men who are able to work but who are required on medical grounds to abstain from using their earning capacity, and that in the case of those where the medical certificate shows total incapacity for work the form should only be completed each time the man comes up for review by the medical referee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The form M.P.M.S.D. 29, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, is now under revision, and consideration is being given to the difficulty stated in this question

REGIONAL OFFICE, MANCHESTER.

Mr. W. SHAW: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the statement that there are over 800 women employed in the Man chester regional director's office, whereby ex-service men are being prevented from obtaining employment in that city; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of correcting, this statement, which completely misrepresents the actual facts. There are, in the regional office of the Ministry at Manchester, 112 women, of whom only 14 are engaged upon clerical work. At the same time, there are 925 men employed, of whom 897 are ex-service men. Of this latter number 407 were disabled in the War.

Mr. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that as many ex-service men as possible are employed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes. No Ministry employs more ex-service men.

7TH WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENT (LIEUTENANT W. C. HAUGHTON).

Major COHEN: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Lieutenant W. C. Haughton, late 7th Warwickshire Regiment, who lost both legs above the knee whilst on active ser vice at Cairo during the War, is not in receipt of a pension; whether he is aware that a court of inquiry found that Mr. Haughton was not on duty at the time of the accident owing to his not having arrived back at camp at a certain time; whether he is aware that Mr. Haughton has a wife and two children to support; and whether he can take immediate steps whereby a man who lost both legs in the service of his country should not be de prived of a pension or grant of any sort?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The papers in this matter have only been received from the War Office during the last week. The circumstances of the accident suggest, I regret to say, that the officer may be ineligible for pension under the Royal Warrant, but further inquiry as to the
facts is necessary and will at once be made. In the meantime a grant has been made to the officer by the Special Grants Committee.

ADDITIONAL RETIRED PAY (OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry has any authority to require the officers who are patients at Grangethorpe Hospital, Manchester, to fill in forms with regard to their receipt or non-receipt of salaries, wages, or workmen's compensation, as a condition precedent to the payment to them of additional retired pay; and, if not, whether he will take steps to withdraw a memorandum, of the 8th February issued to that effect from the Ministry's office in Chadwick Street, S.W., and to direct payment of all arrears due to the officers in question?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Article 6 of the Royal Warrant of 2nd July, 1920, provides that the retired pay of an officer under treatment may be raised to the maximum if the officer is deemed unable in consequence of the treatment to provide for his own support and that of his family. If the officer continues, under his contract of service, to draw full salary or wages from his employer his ability to support himself and his family is not affected by treatment and the forms are issued to obtain the necessary information on this point.

APPEALS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there is delay in appellants having their cases heard before an appeal tribunal, particularly in the London region; whether recommendations have been made for considerable increase in the number of these courts; if he can give any reason why there has been such delay in recommendations being carried out; and what steps it is intended to take to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that two extra courts are now sitting and that two more will begin sitting next Monday. The question of still further increasing the number of courts is now under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the four courts
have been assembled they will not be sufficient to do all the necessary work, and will he take steps to increase them beyond four?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that I have no control over the appeal tribunal, but I will make it my duty to approach the Lord Chancellor to see whether he cannot find more courts, because I am very much afraid that there may be an increase in the next month in the number of cases awaiting trial.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see the Lord Chancellor on the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will do my level best.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not generally known by ex-service men and their dependents that he has no control over this tribunal, and that the Ministry of Pensions is receiving a great deal of blame which it does not deserve?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware of that, but from the questions that are asked in this House and the answers, given ex-service men should realise the position.

Major ENTWISTLE: Although the appeal tribunal does not come under the Ministry of Pensions at all, will not the decision as to the number of such tribunals be guided largely by the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so, and I hope it may be possible, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, to increase the number of these courts.

WIDOW'S CLAIM (MRS. E. A. BRAGAN).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. E. A. Bragan, widow of the late Private J. E. Bragan. No. 83159 Northumberland Fusiliers, about which the hon. Member for Consett wrote to him on the 10th December and again on the 4th February; whether this woman wrote to the Ministry of Pensions in London on 17th November, 1919, claiming a supplementary allowance as a childless wife not earning wages; whether that letter remained unanswered; whether in Janu-
ary she made a similar application to the sub-agent of the local war pensions committed; whether, through the default of that sub-agent, the matter was not brought before the war pensions committee until 10th May, 1920; whether Mrs. Bragan was then informed that her application was too late; and whether she is to be penalised for the neglect of agents of his department?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am considering the further appeal which has been made by the hon. Member in this case, and will communicate with him as early as possible.

ROYAL SCOTTISH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE A. Ross).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private Andrew Ross, No. 25573, 10th Works Battalion, Royal Scottish Fusiliers, enlisted cm 17th January, 1916, and was discharged on 25th August, 1916, with paper marked cause of discharge, sciatica; that this man was again called up on 14th November, 1917, and placed in the E.C.L.C., with No. 461725, and discharged on 26th November, 1918, as no longer physically fit for War service; that this man was sent on labour duty abroad in France; that this man was on treatment allowance until 1920, and went before a board and was turned down; whether he has been paid a weekly pension of 5s. 6d conditional for 13 weeks; whether he is aware that he was ordered to hospital by the medical officer at Bellahouston war hospital, and has been there since 30th July, 1920; whether this man has received no treatment allowance or pension; whether he has undergone an operation for varicocele in Bellahouston hospital, and was recommended by the house doctor for suspensory bandage; whether this recommendation has been refused; whether he is aware that this man is still in a hospital and is scarcely able to walk; and, as his employment prior to enlistment was that of riveter, can he see his way to give treatment allowance meantime, and have his case sympathetically considered for a pension should his condition on leaving hospital be such as to prevent him returning to his pre-War trade?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This man was originally granted a final weekly allowance under Article 7 of the Royal Warrant in
respect of his invaliding disability, myalgia, which was considered to be not attributable to service. He subsequently made a claim for pension for varicocele and other disabilities. The claim was rejected and he appealed to the Pension Appeal Tribunal who upheld the decision of the Ministry. The verdict of the Tribunal is final.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the subsidiary questions at the end of the main question?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry. I have not dealt with those subsidiary points because I dealt with the main point, which was that this case was finally decided by an independent tribunal; but I will look more closely into the points mentioned.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that these are ailments which have developed considerably since the appeal case was decided?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly I will look into this or any other case where there is any feeling of injustice.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EXECUTION (CORNELIUS MURPHY).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Cornelius Murphy, a Kerry farmer, was accused of being in possession of arms, and sentenced to death by a court-martial and shot; whether he can state how many are in custody, under the same charge; and whether the same method of trial will be followed in their case?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that I am not able to give the figures asked for in the second part.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the execution of anyone for merely being in possession of arms is outside the law of this country, and that such a sentence ought not to be put into operation in Ireland or anywhere?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will deal with that in a later question.

"WEEKLY SUMMARY."

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a leading article in the "Weekly Summary," issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary and its auxiliaries, contained the statement that Sinn Fein always was, and still is, a movement based on a murder policy, the aim of which is the apotheosis of assassins; Shinnerea is a blight and a pestilence, and Shinnerea is crime incarnate, and for its propagators the rope and the bullet are all too good; and if he is considering taking action against the editor and publisher and owner of the paper in view of this direct incitement to murder?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read the article in question, and do not agree that it is an incitement to murder.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that any suggestion that the propagation of the particular doctrine that the rope and the bullet are too good is a suggestion that those individuals who propagate any such doctrine should either be hanged or shot? Is not that a direct incitement to murder, for which, in loss words, an hon. Member of this House has been sent to prison for three months?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My interpretation is not that of the hon. Member.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is inviting any explanation of the declaration made in the "Weekly Summary" that all those who are opposed to the Government were supporters of murder?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I dealt with that in a previous statement. It is not my interpretation of the article.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the sentiments expressed in the "Weekly Summary," that the rope and the bullet are too good for what, with his usual delicacy, he calls Shinnerea?

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not stop this publication, which is a disgrace? He can get the "Morning Post" to publish all he has to say

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the statement that the rope and the bullet are too good? Is
that the manner in which he is going to deal with all his political opponents?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, but some of my political opponents would deal with me in that way. I can assure the hon. Member that that is not my view of the point.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 58.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the current number of the "Weekly Summary," issued by him, states that the opponents of the Government stand for the right to murder; and whether this represents the views of His Majesty's Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not accept the interpretation of the article in question suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and his interpretation certainly does not represent the views of the Government.

TRALEE CO-OPERATIVE STORES.

Mr. WATERSON: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has anything further to report concerning the breaking into the Tralee Co-operative Stores by the armed forces of the Crown on 7th December last; whether adequate protection is being given to the staff at the stores; and whether he has informed the Tralee Co-operative Society that it may replace the name of the society in Gaelic upon the facia-board outside the premises as well as in English?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will refer to a reply which I gave him on the 23rd December last, with reference to this matter, he will find that his allegations of violence and intimidation against the Crown forces are not justified. The second and third parts of his question, therefore, do not arise.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the damage was done, and that the damage is there now to be seen by officers of the Crown if they care to view it with an impartial mind? Can the right hon. Gentleman say now that the armed forces of the Crown did not do it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have given the answer supplied to me. If the hon. Member could give me any fact that has not been put before me, I shall see that it is inquired into.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the damaged property, as far as the main doors are concerned, is to be seen now by the right hon. Gentleman, if he is prepared to go to Ireland to see it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It does not follow because the damage is there that it was done by the forces of the Crown.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a personal visit to those districts where the damaged property is?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am actually planning a visit and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accompany me.

Mr. DEVLIN: I will go, but not with you.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Commission visited Tralee after this date, and that I personally saw the name mentioned in the question blotted out, and that it had been blotted out at the instigation of the forces of the Crown and not by the wish of the Co-operative Society of Tralee?

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this name had to be completely eliminated, or, if that were not done, the manager was told to prepare for death within twenty-four hours?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that. If it were true that some persons illegally erased the name in Gaelic or Irish it could not possibly have been done with the consent or approval of this Government which, with the consent of this House, gives thousands of pounds annually for the teaching of Irish.

Mr. WATERSON: Seeing that this damage has been done and that the evidence is contradictory, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant an impartial inquiry?

SHOOTINGS, BALLYMACELLIGOT.

Mr. WATERSON: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry or inquest has been held either by the military or police on the bodies of the two men killed at Ballymacelligot on 12th November, 1920; and, if so, what is the nature of the Report received, and if no inquiry has been held what are the reasons for such inaction?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A military court of inquiry in lieu of inquest has been held to investigate the circumstances attending the death of Patrick Herlihy and John MacMahon at Ballymacelligot on 12th November last. The Court found that on that date these men were in the vicinity of Ballymacelligot with about 30 other civilians, that they were ordered to halt by the police, that they did not do so, and were accordingly fired at by the Royal Irish Constabulary, thereby suffering gunshot wounds; that the deceased were to blame for not halting when challenged to do so by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that no blame can be attached whatever in these matters to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what date that inquiry took place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not the date here, but I will communicate it to the hon. Member.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the facts about the conditions under which these two men were killed have been challenged; that whereas the right hon. Gentleman said there was a trench ambuscade, there never was a trench there, and there is no sign of one; and that whereas he also said that 70 men were in the ambush, the creamery is not big enough to hold half that number of men? Is he also aware that the original of the photo of the creamery published by his Department is at least 100 miles away from Ballymacelligot?

Mr. SPEAKER: A detailed question like that surely ought to have some notice given of it.

Mr. LAWSON: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about a matter which is involved in this question with which he has dealt, and I think I have a right to ask him if he is prepared to stand by the whole of the. Report which is mentioned here.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put these details on the Paper he will get an answer.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in spite of the fact that the prisoners in Ballykinlar camp had received express permission from the English officer in charge of the camp to hold conversation with prisoners in an adjoining camp provided they did not approach to within a certain distance of the wire which separated them, and that this condition was observed, the action of a sentry who fired upon a group of prisoners in order to make them stop talking, thereby killing Patrick Sloan and Joseph Tormey, was described as justifiable homicide by the military court of inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in thinking that permission had been given for internees in one camp to communicate with those in another. On the contrary, such intercommunication had been expressly forbidden in published Orders. I strongly repudiate the suggestion in the last part of the hon. Members question that a military court of inquiry do not conduct their proceedings impartially and fairly.

ARRESTS (CROWN FORCES).

Mr. DEVLIN: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary how many members of the Crown Forces in Ireland have been arrested for robbery or other charges since 1st January, 1921?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of members of the Crown Forces in Ireland who have been arrested for robbery or other offences since 1st January, 1921, is 62.

Captain REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in this House yesterday he admitted that a week elapsed from the occasion when a certain number of cadets of the Auxiliary Force had committed plunder, and that he was not made acquainted with that fact until he saw it in the newspaper, and if that is so, and he has no such control over his administration, how can we be expected to take the figures he now gives us as accurate?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: These figures were supplied to me, in so far as the Army is concerned, by general headquarters in Dublin, and in so far as the police are concerned, by the police headquarters. I will deal with the other
point raised In the question in answer to a Private Notice question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does this include the persons dealt with by General Crozier—persons dismissed from the Force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, I do not think it does.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said that seven cadets had been suspended after the burning of Cork; that 30 men are under arrest in connection with General Crozier's investigation; and does he mean to say that there are only another 23 men all told who have been dealt with? How does he square those statements?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My reply was perfectly clear. I do not think these figures include the 26 cadets about which there is so much controversy, and which I will deal with later on.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman not tell me yesterday that those cadets were under arrest now?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The question on the Paper was, "arrested for robbery or other charges." These 26 cadets are under open arrest pending the finding of the investigations now going on.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how cadets who are to be court-martialled can be under open arrest when the platoon commanders are under close arrest; how is that possible.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We hold the senior officers much more responsible for any breach of discipline than anyone under them.

INQUESTS (NON-COMBATANTS).

Mr. BRIANT: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary how many inquests have been held on non-combatant men, women, and children during the last three months; and how many of the deaths have been attributed to Forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with this information at such short notice. Perhaps he will be good enough to repeat his question on one day next week?

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. SPOOR: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary when it is intended to apply the allowances as obtaining in England to the trades instructors, hospital warders, etc., in the Irish prison service; whether he will take immediate steps to have the assimilation scheme completed and announced to the service without further delay; whether his attention has been drawn to a circular of the English Prison Commissioners, dated 8th September, 1920, re subsistence allowance; and, if so, will he take steps to have the same allowance applied to the Irish prison ser vice in accordance with the sanctioned principles of the assimilation scheme?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to questions on this subject yesterday.

Mr. G. BARKER: 49.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the position of Irish prison officers still continues to be onerous and dangerous; whether the Government is prepared to give just recognition to those officers on account of the unprecedented circumstances prevailing in Ireland; and, if so, will he say when it is intended to give the officers the special recognition grant promised them in June last?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that the position of the Irish prison officers continues to be onerous and in some cases dangerous, but not more so than that of many other servants of the Crown in Ireland at the present juncture. I am accordingly unable to recommend any special gratuity in their case. I am not aware of any promise been given in June last to make any such special payment.

Mr. BARKER: 50.
asked the Chief Secretary whether a representative of the Government visited Ireland in June of last year for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the Irish prison service; whether he held prolonged interviews with the elected representatives of the staffs of Mountjoy and Belfast prisons; whether, as a result of those interviews, he made any suggestions or recommendations on behalf of the warder class; and, if so, will he now say what has been done to carry them into effect?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An inspector of the English prison service visited Ireland Last year at the request of the General
Prisons Board in order to make suggestions to the Board in the light of English experience. Though he visited several prisons and freely exchanged views with the prison staffs his visit had no reference to pay or classification.

Mr. LUNN: 51.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that officers, who have recently retired from the Irish prison service after a long number of years in the one rank, have not been given 75 per cent, of their bonus to count for pensions as authorised in the Whitley Council Report of March last; and if he will take immediate steps to have those pensions readjusted to their proper figure?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Until recently the bonus of Irish prison officers were calculated on a different principle from that in force in the Civil Service generally, but their rates of pay and bonus have now been brought into conformity with those of other civil servants, with effect from the 1st March last. The pensions of officers who have retired since that date will be recalculated as soon as possible on the basis applicable to other civil servants.

SINN FEIN (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to publish in the near future a full account and documents concerning the negotiations with Sinn Fein; for what reason were the negotiations discontinued; and whether they will be renewed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his speech on the first day of the Session why the negotiations for a truce fell through.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. LYNN: 48.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that secondary education in Ireland is in a critical condition; and what steps the Government intend to take in order to tide it over the present difficulty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, questions of Secondary and other education in Ireland pass under the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliaments, to which the final solution of these questions must now be
left. As a temporary arrangement the Estimates for intermediate education (Ireland) for the coming financial year will make provision for grants on the same scale as in the current financial year, and will therefore include the renewal of the special interim grant of £50,000 first introduced last autumn.

Mr. MOLES: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the published statement issued by the Intermediate Board of Education, Ireland? In view of the statements contained in that document will he give the certificated teachers an opportunity for an interview with him on the subject?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My answer, I think, must be treated as final. This is a matter which primarily concerns the Exchequer, and now that the Homo Rule Act is law this question of education must be worked out under the direction of the Act.

Mr. MOLES: May I, then, further ask whether, having left the intermediate education question untreated for 15 years, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to hand over that heritage, and not to make, financial provision for it?

An HON. MEMBER: What about the £8,000,000?

OUTRAGES AND REPRISALS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that among the farmhouses destroyed in the Glengoole district, near Killenaule, on 12th February last, by order of Colonel-Commandant N. J. Cameron, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., was that of a widow named Mrs. Fitzgerald; that Mrs. Fitzgerald protested her entire innocence of complicity in a local ambush and her powerlessness to prevent it, but was given an hour's notice to quit and not allowed to remove her furniture; and that Mrs. Fitzgerald's son served all through the late War; and will he state what purpose has been served by this arson?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have no information regarding the statements made in this question, but I have called for a report.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the facts are as stated, will the mother of this soldier be compensated; and will the right hon. Gentleman give directions to his colonel-commandants in future not to persecute the mothers of men who have fallen in arms? Cannot I have that assurance?
53. The hon. and gallant Member asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a communication was addressed to General Strickland, G.O.C., Southern Area in Ireland, on the 18th January, by Mr. Bernard Feldman, a representative of the firm of Messrs. H. Farden and Company, 28 and 29, Cheapside, London, E.C., stating that on Friday, 14th January, he was stopped and searched by three members of the Auxiliary Force in Cork, and that Treasury notes to the value of £6 10s. were taken from him; if it is proposed to compensate Mr. Feldman for his loss; and if he is aware of the great number of complaints of cases of a similar nature that are taking place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a report with reference to this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question one day next week.

Mr. DEVLIN: When questions are asked and the right hon. Gentleman says that he has called for reports, will he send the answers when he receives them to the members who have put the question on the paper?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I promise to do that: in fact, I always do so.

Mr. DEVLIN: 55.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick McCabe, a young farmer residing at Rockcorry, County Monaghan; whether he is aware that this young man was taken from his home by members of the Crown forces, placed in a lorry, and handcuffed; that while in the lorry he was so badly beaten that he had to be taken to the hospital at Monaghan; that he was removed from the hospital in Monaghan before being physically fit to travel; and that the results of his beating were so bad that he was hardly able to walk to the railway station; whether on arrival in Belfast he was removed to hospital
where he is at present; whether there never was any charge against this young man; why he is still being detained in custody; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a report with reference to these allegations. If the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question one day next week, I hope that I shall then be able to furnish him with a reply.

MALICIOUS INJURY CLAIMS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 56.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state what is the total amount which has been awarded for malicious injury claims in Ireland during the last year; whether many of these claims are not contested by the local authorities concerned, with the result that awards are being made in many instances without a proper scrutiny; and whether, with a view to avoiding an undue expenditure of public money, the Government will appoint a Commission forthwith to re-examine all such claims and fix, with the assistance of experts, the amount that should be awarded in each case, and to make recommendations as to how the liability for these payments is to be met, seeing that in most cases those who inflict the damage are not ratepayers and often come from outside the districts chargeable?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The summarised records of the total amount awarded over the whole of Ireland last year in respect of criminal and malicious injury claims are not at the moment complete. In the case, however, of those councils and boroughs which have repudiated their liabilities, the total of the unpaid awards is approximately £2,500,000. Of this amount £155,000 has been discharged from the local taxation account under the Provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. I am aware that the vast majority of these claims are not contested by the councils concerned, whose inaction in this matter may result in grave prejudice to the interests of the ratepayers. The suggestion that in these circumstances a Commission should be appointed to review the awards shall receive careful consideration.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the National
Exchequer has had to pay in the shape of compensation for these claims?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Very little, very little.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why is it very little, when you have done all the harm?

Mr. WATERSON: Then we may take it that the armed Forces of the Crown have not been responsible for anything?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, while taking into consideration whether or not a Committee shall be appointed, take early steps to prevent further public moneys being paid out on these uncontested claims, and before the matter has been further looked into?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The money is not paid from the Exchequer on these claims. In cases where the Council refuse to recognise the authority of this House, and to acknowledge the law of England, and decline to be represented by counsel, the Council's refusal prejudices ratepayers who are primarily responsible for the damage.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes, but apart from the injustice to the Exchequer will the right hon. Gentleman consider the injustice to the ratepayers of Ireland, and see that their money is not paid out owing to the default of their local authorities to contest these claims?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a most important one. As the law now stands, the local authority should be, and in all cases where the Council is not acting recalcitrantly is, represented before the County Court Judge in the assessing of damages. The proper authority for the ratepayer to look to is the local authority, and that he has the power to elect. I may add in reference to my previous answer that money is paid out of Exchequer grants in the way of compensation to the widows and dependants of members of the Crown Forces who are murdered or wounded.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that many of these ratepayers are not Sinn Feiners at all, and that they ought to have some chance to say something before these matters come before the Courts, and
not be compelled to pay enormous rates for destruction in which they have had no part?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a real difficulty—

Mr. DEVLIN: In cases such as those recited by Judge Bodkin and other learned judges to the effect that this damage has been done by uniformed officers of the Crown—damage to property belonging to innocent persons—is the Exchequer prepared to meet these claims and pay the damages assessed by these learned judges?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot agree to that—

Mr. DEVLIN: Why not? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what justification there is for withholding from innocent people the damages given to them by the judges when these judges have declared in the clearest and most precise form that these damages have been brought about by the servants of the Crown in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer the question as well as I could. If the hon. Member will put his supplementary question down I will endeavour to get him an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have asked for it half a dozen times."] We are dealing with a very difficult, very technical, and legal point—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is a perfectly constitutional legal tribunal!

Captain REDMOND: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not take the assessment of the legal tribunal in these matters, that is, the County Court judge?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Because it is not the function of the County Court judge, in assessing damages under the Criminal Injuries Act, to allocate the blame to individuals; his business is to find out if the damage is malicious, and to assess the amount. That is one of the reasons why the decision of the County Court judge cannot be taken as final. Another reason is that there is no one, in the present circumstances, in the troubled areas, representing the ratepayers, and therefore the damages may be inflated.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the moral right to accept the loyal decision of his own Judges in Ireland when they assess damages to innocent people who have had their property destroyed, and should that money not be paid by the Government whose agents are responsible for this destruction? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the moral right of carrying out the orders of Judges in Ireland?

Colonel GREIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £2,500,000 includes the damage done to police barracks throughout Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state definitely when this independent committee of inquiry will be set up?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say anything more.

POLICE BARRACK, LOWER WHITEHOUSE.

Mr. HANNA: 57.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the universal desire of the inhabitants of Lower Whitehouse, County Antrim, and the surrounding district for the re-establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at that place; and if he can see his way to comply with this desire in this regard at an early date?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have ascertained that while it has not been possible to include the police barracks at White-house among those which are to be reopened at once, the matter is receiving careful attention.

Mr. MOLES: Is it not a fact that the telephones and telegraph wires in this district have been cut three times within a fortnight 100 yards from those barracks, and does he not think that the reopening of the barracks at Lower Whitehouse would be a great protection to the inhabitants?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not the most serious part of it.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the people in this country are asking for the telephone to be cut off?

MR. S. MACSWINEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet inquired into the treatment of Mr. S. MacSwiney, brother of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, after his arrest on the 8th February last; whether he was pinioned and pitched half naked into a lorry, his overcoat, watch, and money being stolen; whether he was threatened with death; and what action has been taken?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that the Commander-in-Chief has not yet received the full Report of the Inquiry he has directed to be made into these allegations. He has ascertained, however, that the facts briefly are that Mr. MacSwiney was pinioned in order to prevent his attempting to escape, but was not ill-treated or threatened in any way. His watch and money were taken from him on his arrest and will be returned to him on his release. This is the usual practice in all cases and the suggestion of theft is quite unfounded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries about the money and the watch will he now make inquiries about the man's overcoat and why he could not have it given to him? Is he aware that this man had to walk in his shirt for a long distance in inclement weather?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must postpone any further items.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is not the hon. and gallant Member responsible for the accuracy of the statements in his question? He stated that these things were stolen from this man.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had full information from the sister of the man and I accepted it in good faith.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 61.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many of the 124,000 persons wholly or partially unemployed in Ireland are drawing unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation, and what the recent average weekly expenditure has been on this account; how many local authorities in Ireland have made application to the Unemployment
Grants Committee for contributions to approved relief works, and how many have not made such application; and whether many non-applications are due to objections to the conditions imposed; if so, what are these conditions which stand in the way of relief of unemployment?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. The number claiming unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation in Ireland on the 11th February was 70,492. In addition, 42,583 unemployment books or out-of-work donation policies were lodged in respect of persons employed under systematic short-time arrangements. The average weekly expenditure in benefit and donation for the period of six weeks ending on the 11th February was £43,668.
I am informed that ten local authorities in Ireland have made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for financial assistance in respect of approved relief works. The number of local authorities who have not submitted applications, although circularised by the Unemployment Grants Committee, is 151. I do not know how far the small number of applications is due to objections to the conditions governing the distribution of the fund administered by the Unemployment Grants Committee. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the circular letters in which the conditions are described.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Am I to understand that the situation as to unemployment in Ireland would be greatly relieved if these 150 local bodies complied with the conditions laid down by the Government?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The committee has got the money, and if the local authorities put up useful schemes of public work they would be eligible to receive it, but 151 of them have not done so, and ten have.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department make a grant to the owners of the factories and other property in the town of Balbriggan to enable them to bring back the workers who wore driven out because of the destruction of their property by the armed forces of the Crown?

AUXILIARY POLICE (LOOTING CHAEGES).

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor as to why he did not report the serious matter of the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets of the Auxiliary Division of Royal Irish Constabulary, and also the resignation of General Crozier and of Captain Macfie, the Commandant and Adjutant of the Auxiliary Division.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation from the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, because General Tudor had informed him that the offences of the 26 cadets who were dismissed were to be condoned; whether this statement was contained in the letter tendering his resignation written by General Crozier to General Tudor on the 19th instant and whether he is now aware that the 26 cadets were returned to duty, and not, in the first place, for trial?

Captain REDMOND: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the letters which appeared in today's Press exchanged between General Crozier and General Tudor: whether he will now definitely state on what grounds General Crozier and his Adjutant, Captain Macfie, resigned; and in view of the fact that he approved their action, why General Tudor accepted the resignation; and whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of these officers who were endeavouring to maintain discipline in the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will answer the three questions together. The hon. Member for Belfast seems to be under a misapprehension as to an answer I gave in the House to a supplementary question yesterday. I did not intend to convey the impression that I had no knowledge of this very serious breach of discipline at Trim, or that the Chief of Police did not mention it. He mentioned it to me on the 15th instant, and I told him it was a matter of discipline, and he must take the steps he thought best for the discipline of the force. I heard nothing of General Crozier's or his
Adjutant's resignation until I saw it in the Press on the 22nd instant. Nor had I until then any knowledge whatsoever of any disagreement between General Tudor and General Crozier in this matter.
As regards the substance of the questions, I again take the opportunity of stating that the sole reason why the cadets in question were ordered to return to Ireland was to enable a thorough investigation to be made of the charges in which they were implicated. It is not the case that they have been returned to duty. There never was, and there is now, no question of condoning looting and the suggestion apparently put forward by General Crozier or on his behalf that his resignation was in any way due to the frustration by higher authority of efforts made by him to secure an improved standard of discipline is one for which there is not the slightest foundation in fact. General Crozier is the officer who, as Commandant, has from the outset been primarily responsible for the maintenance of discipline throughout the Auxiliary Division, and I am informed that he has at no time made any complaint to superior authority in regard to his powers or the means at his disposal for securing an adequate standard of discipline. Having regard to all the circumstances, I fully approve General Tudor's action in accepting the resignation of these officers.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? He has given a series of statements, but he has not answered my question whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor why he did not report the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets, and why he did not also report the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought I had dealt fully with the first part of the question. The second part refers to a letter from General Crozier which I think is dated 19th February, and was sent from an address in Somerset to General Tudor in Dublin. I got a telegraphic copy of that letter yesterday for the first time.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did General Tudor report to the right hon. Gentleman that he had in his hand the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant, and the
reasons why they had resigned? Did the right hon. Gentleman receive any report from General Tudor on that?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received the letter over the wire yesterday.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he waited until yesterday, when the matter was published in "The Times" and subsequently raised in this House, before sending the letter, and why was it General Tudor did not report so serious a matter to the right hon. Gentleman when the incident took place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think General Tudor was lax in reporting it. The letter was sent on 19th February from Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. The text was wired to me yesterday and I received it last evening.

Mr. DEVLIN: I must press for an answer to the question whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he left the Chief Secretary, who is responsible in this House for the Irish Government, ignorant of the facts until he saw them in "The Times"; why he did not acquaint him of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and the reasons for their resignation. Has any explanation been asked for from General Tudor in regard to that?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said yesterday he knew nothing whatever about this business until he saw it in "The Times"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the preliminary paragraph of the answer I gave just now I tried to make that clear. In answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I saw there might be a misapprehension, and I have done my best to correct it. In my opinion this is a case not of conflict of principle in dealing with discipline in Ireland, but by the unfortunate miscarriage of a letter General Crozier thought he was ignored when, in fact, he was not.

Mr. DEVLIN: This is the point I want to make clear: Why did not General Tudor acquaint the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and why did he
not report it to the right hon. Gentleman instead of leaving him to wait to read it in "The Times" newspaper?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My answer to that is, that General Tudor wired over yesterday the letter of resignation from General Crozier. I do not know when he received it. I know it was dated 19th February, and sent from a post office in Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. I do not think there was any intentional delay on General Tudor's part in sending it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I press for an answer to my question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because General Tudor had informed him that the offence of the 26 cadets who had been dismissed was to be condoned and that the whole question of court-martialling them with a view to greater punishment was only an afterthought when the matter was raised in this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that can be proved?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Having been a personal friend of both officers concerned, may I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because he thought his authority had been undermined, and in view of the fact that there was a mistake, cannot something be done for General Crozier in this matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must confess that this matter has disturbed me a very great deal. These two gallant officers were friends and have worked together for years. General Crozier was appointed to his position on the recommendation of General Tudor. I regret the circumstances more than anybody else, but under the circumstances I do not see how I can do other than support the Chief of Police on whom I rely.

Captain REDMOND: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the expression "Chief of Police"? I should like to know when that office was created and whether it is in any way the same as that of Inspector-General of Police?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Do I understand aright that these men were under military law when their case was investigated and they were dismissed the force
by their commanding officer, and is there any law or regulation by which they can be taken back to Ireland and tried again?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: These men were dismissed as unsuitable for the Auxiliary Division. There was no trial preceding that dismissal. They therefore came to General Tudor and asked that they might have a trial before they were dismissed. That is the whole point. The regrettable feature is that General Tudor was not able, owing to a miscarriage in the post and a delay in the receipt of a letter, to communicate that fact to General Crozier.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Was there no investigation by the commanding officer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The commanding officer has been suspended, and the inquiry into the case of these men is now proceeding. I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the commanding officer of the cadet company.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: The immediate commanding officer.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it possible for any man in the Auxiliary Division to be dismissed the force without a trial of any kind?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, it is possible to dismiss a man if he be unsuitable for the force.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Without trial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, without trial, on the ground of unsuitability for the force. If there be a charge of crime against him. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was!"] Yes, I say that there was. There was a charge of crime, and the men asked, and I think fairly asked, that they might be tried.

Mr. WALLACE: Might I ask my right hon. Friend what explanation he gives of the very serious statement in the letter that, in General Crozier's view, crime in this case has been condoned? I would like to know what comment the right hon. Gentleman has to make upon that statement.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer that question. I think it was a totally unwarranted term to use, and it is because it was so unjust and unwarranted
that it makes it very difficult for me to do other than support the Chief of Police.

At the end of Questions—

Captain REDMOND: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to ask to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the lack of control of the Irish Administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until yesterday morning, and the grave danger to public peace and order in consequence of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of General Crozier, Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Adjutant, Captain Macfie."

Mr. SPEAKER: The course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to take may, I am afraid, place the House in considerable difficulty with regard to the progress of the Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill. I understand that, in the interests of the men concerned, it is extremely desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment. The effect of not concluding the remaining stages of the Bill to-day may be to deprive the men next week of money which they are expecting to receive.

Mr. J. JONES: Why not work overtime?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether it would be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Motion? If so, I should be prepared to take it one day next week when this Bill has been completed. I cannot say what the consequences may be if these people do not receive the money to which they naturally consider that they are entitled, and they cannot receive it if the Bill does not go through to-day. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to postpone his Motion. If so, I will overlook any question of urgency.

Captain REDMOND: I very much appreciate the point that you make about the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and
certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to postpone the matter on the understanding that it will be discussed early next week, say, Monday.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will select his own day. All I suggest is that his Motion should not come on until the Unemployment Insurance Bill is through.

Captain REDMOND: In view of what you say, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will give us an assurance that we shall have that day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it will be more convenient to the House if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take his discussion on Tuesday, subject to the permission of Mr. Speaker, which has been already given. He is master, and not the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the desirability of avoiding precedents of this kind, will it not be possible to take the discussion on one of the Supplementary Estimates early next week? [HON. MEMBERS:"No."]

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think the House will recognise that my hon. and gallant Friend has very properly, with the full assent of all his colleagues, fallen in with the suggestion which you have been kind enough to make, and I hope that it will be left there. This is a separate and important question, and I hope that it will be taken separately.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I draw attention to the fact that the Standing Order deals with urgent matters. If a matter be put off for four days, may I very respectfully suggest that it can be no longer urgent.

Mr. J. JONES: Then we will have it now.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that I would waive that objection. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is postponing the matter for the general convenience of the House, and I do not think that it would be right to take the objection of urgency as one that would debar him.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether in future it will be competent for an hon. Member, wishing to move the Adjournment of the House when it is not possible to do so, to use this ruling as a precedent?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will depend on me or my successor, and, if I choose or my successor chooses to take the same course that I have taken to-day for the convenience of the House, I think the House on such occasion will again endorse such action.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Ought not the opinion of the House to be taken on this matter before the precedents of the House are absolutely altered? By next week this matter will be neither urgent nor of public importance in all probability, and therefore it is creating a very great precedent.

Mr. SPEAKER: We create precedents every day.

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken or will be taken by His Majesty's Government to approach the Governments of America and Japan with a view to arriving at a definite understanding on the subject of limitation of armaments?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As the House knows, this question is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, but it would be premature to make any statement on the subject at present.

FISHERMEN'S WIDOWS (PENSIONS).

Major ENTWISTLE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Government have adopted the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions relating to the Mercantile Marine and in view of the last paragraph of the Report, he will grant the same; benefits to British fishermen and their dependants who suffered from enemy action during the War?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements are being made with a view to meeting the situation which will arise on the exhaustion of the lump-sum compensation money granted to the widows of the fishermen in question.

Major ENTWISTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the details will be available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot.

FISHERIES BILL.

Major ENTWISTLE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Fisheries Bill this Session; and, if so, can he give the date he will issue it to the public?

Colonel BURN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the urgent necessity for the Amendment of the existing Salmon and Fresh Water Fishery Acts; and whether a Bill will be introduced to effect this?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill is under consideration, and until it has been considered I am not in a position to make any statement.

Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the fishing industry has been very sadly neglected, and that if the Government only gave it sympathetic assistance there is no saying to what extent it might be developed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the preliminary statement of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am not well informed on the subject. The Bill is being prepared; that is all I can say.

TRAWLING INDUSTRY (COAL).

Major ENTWISTLE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that British trawlers are working at a loss owing to the price of coal, ice, and labour; and if he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of coal to the fishing industry, in view of the importance of the continued existence of the trawling industry to the food supplies of the country?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, who will be aware that, in pursuance of the policy of decontrol of the coal industry, all Government control over price is to be removed as from the 1st March next.

"UNKNOWN WARRIOR," WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

Mr. HIGHAM: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that relatives of those fallen in the War cannot visit the grave of the unknown soldier after 3 p.m.; and will he consider the advisability of recommending that the Abbey be kept open till at least 6 p.m. in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the exception of the hours of divine service, when visitors are not allowed to be walking about, the Abbey is open to the public throughout the whole year until dark. I do not think it desirable to recommend that visitors-should be admitted up to a later hour.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (REBATE).

Mr. HIGHAM: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Select Committee on Telephone Administration and Charges reporting that the new charges are excessive, a rebate will be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apart from other considerations, it would not, I am informed, be administratively possible to make a retrospective reduction as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HIGHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House informed the House that rebate would be made in the event of this Committee deciding against the charges?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the statement made by the Leader of the House; it was not to that effect.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What are the other considerations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What other considerations?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said "apart from other considerations." May I ask what other considerations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not thought it worth while to answer that question myself, because it is administratively impossible.

Mr. BETTERTON: Would it not be competent for the Committee itself, under the terms of reference read out by the Attorney General, to make any recommendation it liked with regard to the rebate; and is not the question as to whether it would be possible or not a matter for the Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot carry in my head the terms of reference, and I do not know what would be possible to the Committee, but whether the thing is administratively possible or not perhaps administrators are as competent to form an opinion on as anyone else.

Major NALL: Is there any reason why a refund of telephone charges should be any more difficult than a refund of Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If a comparable proposition were put up with regard to the Income Tax, I should give the same answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister what reparation Germany has so far made to the Allies in kind, and its approximate value in sterling; and what portion of such amount has been received by Great Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The deliveries in kind which have up to the present been allocated by the Reparation Commission to the British Empire consist of 3,181 tons of dyestuffs and 304 ships amounting to 1,508,000 gross tons. Of these 262 ships have been sold for £13,000,000. From the proceeds of sale there will have to be deducted expenses incurred in repairing ex-enemy ships to the amount of £3,100,000. I have not the information required to answer the question in so far as deliveries not allocated to the British Empire are concerned.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Friday last the Prime Minister said, on his own authority, that deliveries in kind amounted to many hundreds of millions of pounds, and, if so, are not the figures available?

Colonel GREIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to
whether Germany has returned to France and Belgium the cattle which were awarded under the Treaty of Peace?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer questions of that kind. I have no personal knowledge of the matter. As to the extent to which reparations in kind have passed to France or Belgium, I am not aware. I do not dispute what the hon. Member opposite says; I do not know exactly what the Prime Minister said the other day. I am speaking only of reparations in kind.

Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask what is the effect on the shipbuilding industry in this country? Have there been any complaints to the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: In view of the great interest in this subject, can my right hon. Friend have a return prepared to show the amount of reparation made not only to the British Empire but to her Allies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not object to information of that kind being made available by the Reparations Commission. It is beyond my control.

Mr. McNEILL: But if the right hon. Gentleman were to ask for such a return from the Reparations Commission, would they not give him the information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not certain they themselves would give the information.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of shipyard workers are out of work in consequence of these ships being disposed of?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am not aware that they are out of work in consequence of the ships being disposed of.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister what bonds have so far been handed over by Germany to the Allies under the terms of the Peace Treaty; and whether such bonds are to be met at maturity independently of the sum resolved upon at the Paris Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the British Delegate on the Reparation Commission that Germany has delivered to the Commission the 20 milliard marks gold bearer bonds under Section 1 of paragraph 12 of Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles, and the 40 milliard marks gold bearer bonds under Section (2) of the same paragraph, together with a covering undertaking in writing to issue when required by the Commission a further instalment of 40 milliard marks gold bearer bonds. The exact relation between these bonds and the payments proposed by the Supreme Council at Paris in the Agreement of 29th January, 1921, is one of the questions to be discussed by the Supreme Council next week.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is there not a great deal of doubt as to what a milliard means? What is a milliard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not think it is my business to answer questions of that kind. It would make the House ridiculous if I did. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the right hon. Gentleman know?"] A thousand millions.

Sir F. HALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take an early opportunity of making a statement as to the proposed reparation terms to Germany recently settled in Paris, so that the German delegates who are to discuss the matter at the London Conference may be advised of the views of the House on the general principles involved and that those who are opposed to exacting monetary contribution from Germany for her wanton attack on Europe may have an opportunity of expressing their views and their reason for adopting such an attitude?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made a full statement on this subject during the Debate on the Address, to which at present there is nothing to add.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 35.
asked the Prime Minister what contribution Germany has so far made towards the cost of the upkeep of the Army of the Rhine; and in what form such contribution has been made?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The amount received by the War Office towards the cost of the upkeep of the Army of the Rhine is about 346 million marks in local currency for the current needs of the force. For other receipts, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

DIESEL ENGINES.

Mr. LUNN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister what the situation will be if the Diesel engines are not disposed of by the German Government before 31st March owing to the economic situation; and whether, if that situation arises, the time allowed for the disposal of these engines will be extended?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms worth): This is a hypothetical question, which I cannot undertake to answer at the present stage.

MANDATES, AFRICA.

Mr. LUNN: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any agreement of understanding between the British and French Governments as to the terms of the Mandates for African territory; and whether the Government is in any way committed to agree to a provision allowing the raising of native armies for use outside mandated territory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of the Mandates for the ex-German territories of Togoland and the Cameroons have been agreed upon by His Majesty's Government and the French Government, and the instruments embodying that agreement have been submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. Until they have been approved by the Council, I am not in a position to make any statement as regards the second part of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not the Peace Treaties themselves lay down that these troops are only to be raised for defensive purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that.

MOTOR LORRIES (WAR OFFICE SUBSIDY).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether this House will be given an opportunity of discussing the question of a War Office subsidy of motor lorries, in the event of their being required for purposes of war, before the War Office Committee come to any final decision in the matter?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The hon. Member may rest assured that the advantages to be gained by a scheme of registration, which are very considerable, will be fully weighed before a decision is taken; but I am afraid I cannot undertake to promise that discussion in this House shall precede decision.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Are we still to understand that the proposition of the War Office is to pay £45 per annum for each registered car? I have seen the document myself. Is it intended, without discussion in this House, to make such an astounding financial arrangement as that?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir. I think I replied yesterday to an hon. Member that this matter is under consideration. No decision has been come to.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not make a promise that this House shall consider such an astounding proposition before it is carried out?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that forms have already been sent out to people to fill in for the purpose of getting this £45?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not know that any such forms have been sent out, but I will inquire into that matter. With regard to a discussion, of course there is every opportunity of discussing these matters when the Army Votes come up in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late!"] The expressions of opinion that have been uttered here with regard to this matter will have due weight in the War Office. I cannot promise that discussion will take place in this House before a decision is taken.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, approximately, what the total cost is going to be?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the question is put down, I shall be very glad to ascertain.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has the Treasury been consulted in this matter?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No decision has yet been come to.

Mr. WATERSON: Is this part of the Government's scheme of economy?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely, yes or no, whether any payments will be made under the scheme before the House has had a chance of discussing it?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There may be no payments at all. No decision has yet been come to. I cannot undertake to answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: How is it no decision has been come to, if the forms have been sent out?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I was not aware that any forms had been sent out.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask this definite question? Will the right hon. Gentleman defer a decision in this matter until it has been raised on the Estimates?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the point put by the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair, that we should not bind ourselves to anything until the Estimates have been considered. This form, which has just been put in my hands, says it is only a proposed form.

HOUSING BILL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 40.
asked the Prime Minister how soon the Government propose to re-introduce the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of last Session?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) of which I will send him a copy.

CENSUS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 43.
asked the Prime Minister to what Government Department is entrusted the taking of the Census for 1921; whether it is intended to vary the facts to be ascertained under the Census from those ascertained in the Census of 1911; and whether, in view of the fact that no inquiry into the consumption of food and other commodities known as the cost of living has been made since 1904, he will take the opportunity of the taking of the Census to make inquiries into the cost of living in selected middle-class and working-class households?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to reply to this question. The taking of the Census in England and Wales is entrusted to the Registrar-General, subject to my control and direction. The 1921 Census enquiries are those prescribed by the Order in Council, dated the 21st December last, and do not comprise any cost of living enquiry. Such an enquiry, being largely concerned with prices, is beyond the scope of the Census.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last estimate of the cost of living was made in 1904? Is it not time we got something up-to-date?

Dr. ADDISON: It would be very useful to have up-to-date figures as to the cost of living, I agree, but what I say is you cannot get them in the Census.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that every previous Census has been made for the entire United Kingdom? Is an exception to be made, or will this also include Ireland?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that very important questions of policy as well as the question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance will be settled at the meetings with the representatives of our Empire when this House will have parted with those Votes for the fighting services on which policy questions can be raised; and whether he can devise some
arrangement by which this difficulty can be obviated by prolonging the policy discussion to the Vote for administration services or by setting down the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence with a view to fighting policy questions being raised and considered as a whole at a stage subsequent to the decision on the proposed renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The natural opportunity for the discussion of this subject would, I think, be the Foreign Office Vote.

TURKEY (BRITISH PRISONERS).

Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if there are any British prisoners in the hands of the Turkish Government at Angora; if so, what is their number; whether any Nationalist Turks have been captured by the British forces; and if he will state what steps have been taken to secure the release of the British prisoners?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are 22 British prisoners in the hands of the Turkish Nationalists, and there are a number of Nationalists in British custody. The Government of Angora when previously approached refused to discuss the release of the British prisoners. It is hoped that the matter may be settled at the present conference.

Sir F. HALL: Is it to be understood that this matter will be raised during the visit of the Turkish representatives to this country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope, as I have said, that that will be so.

Sir F. HALL: But may I press the right hon. Gentleman upon this matter: whether we are to understand that it will be raised so that these British soldiers may be released?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I myself am not in a position to give that promise, but I will make representations to the heads of our delegation.

Captain ELLIOT: Seeing that the Government refused to negotiate with the Bolshevists until our prisoners were released cannot they take the same course in respect to the prisoners in the hands of the Turks?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RIOTS, PUNJAB.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any information to give the House regarding the disturbance at Mankana, in which the number of killed are said to be about 200, and what was the cause of it?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend received the following telegram from the Government of India on Tuesday:
Following telegram received from Government of Punjab, dated 20th February. Serious fight has taken place at Nankana in Sheikhpura district between Mahants party and Sikh reformers. Large numbers believed wounded, and one corpse reported burnt. Deputy Commissioner has cabled for military assistance, and 100 British and 100 Indian troops leave Lahore this afternoon accompanied by Commissioner.
I may explain that a Mahant is the person in charge of a temple or religious property, and that previous to this occurrence (as to which no further details have so far been received) the Government of India reported that there had been trouble recently in several places in the Punjab connected with Sikh shrines, and that, in consequence, the Punjab Government has decided to move its legislative council to appoint a committee of inquiry with a view to legislation.

MUNITIONS HUTS, DUDLEY.

Mr. WIGNALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that the Ministry of Munitions has raised the rent of certain munitions huts in Dudley by 1s. 10d. per week, with only a fortnight's notice; that the rent of each of these small huts now totals 11s. per week; whether this illegal action on the part of his Department has received his sanction; and whether he will make further inquiries into the matter?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I have been asked to answer this question. These huts have been taken over by my Department and I have ascertained that, without any interest on capital or allowance for depreciation, there has actually been a
deficit of £700 per annum. The local rates have recently been increased and to the extent of this increase it has been necessary to raise the rents of these and similar huts under my control in the United Kingdom. This increase, so far as Dudley is concerned, will bring the 6s. 6d. weekly rents up to 8s. 4d.; and the 5s. rents up to 6s., and not to 11s. as the hon. Member suggests. As regards the notice the hon. Member is evidently mistaken, as a fortnight's notice was given although only a week was legally required. The actual increase in rent is authorised under the Increase of Rents Act.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is it not a fact that the Act of Parliament provides for four clear weeks' notice before an increase of rent can be claimed by the landlord, and in this case was it not a violation of the law to enforce an increase without a legal notice?

Sir A. MOND: I have just informed the hon. Member that a fortnight's notice was given, which is one week more than is necessary.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it not the rule, Mr. Speaker, that only questions of urgency are put by private notice? Has this question any urgency except the fact that there is an election going on at Dudley?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: In the absence of the Leader of the House, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 4.0 P.M. what business it is the intention of the Government to bring forward next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To-morrow, Friday, we propose to take Supplementary Estimates, four Votes in Class I and the first two in Class II.
On Monday, Supplementary Estimates—the Railways Estimate.
On Tuesday, the Speaker out of the Chair, on the Air Votes.
On Wednesday, Air Estimates, Vote A and 1.
On Thursday and Friday, the Consolidated Fund Bill and Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask if the Consolidated Fund Bill, on Thursday and Friday, is an ad hoc Consolidated Fund Bill for the purpose of the Railways Bill, and that only?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is so.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Unemployment Insurance [Money] Report and on the Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (QUESTIONS).

Viscount CURZON: I desire to ask you, Sir, a question with regard to the ruling given yesterday on a question in reference to India. I asked a question with reference to a certain man in India, and whether certain statements made about him were correct. You replied that it did not seem to be a matter for Parliament, but one for the Legislative Council. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) then asked:
Is it not a matter for this House to know whether a man responsible for the Government of India, who has been appointed to high office under the Crown, is a convicted rebel? I submit that we are entitled to that information.
You said that the House having practically given the Home Rule, or something in the nature of Home Rule, to these councils, the less it interfered with the councils the better. When a country has been given Home Rule, are we to understand that no further questions may be asked about the details of administration in that country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I call your attention to a section of the Act passed the year before last? Section 4 enacts that the Governor of a Governor's Province may, by notification, appoint ministers, not being members of his Executive, and so on. The Governor of this Province was an officer appointed by the Crown, and for the, appointment of that officer the Secretary of State is clearly responsible. I submit that under the terms of that section, this minister having been appointed by the Governor of the Province, who was appointed by the Secretary of State here, we are
entitled to ask questions of the Secretary of State as to the conduct of his own appointment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not also laid down that the Ministers so appointed are responsible to the Local Legislature and removable by the Provincial Council. If that be so, would not a deadlock be reached at once if Ministers were appointed to an Indian Province and had not the confidence of the Provincial Assembly of that province. Therefore, is it not impossible for two Legislative Chambers to attempt to share such responsibility, and will it not have to be made quite clear whether the Indian Ministers are responsible to the Provincial Councils or to this House. It must be one or the other; both cannot possibly exercise the responsibility.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend has not quoted the Section, which goes on to say:
Any Ministers so appointed shall hold office during his (the Governor's) pleasure.

Sir H. CRAIK: Might I, as a member of the Joint Committee, point out that the nomination of these Ministers is in the hands of the Governor, but we were repeatedly assured that the Governor would be responsible to the Secretary of State. That is quite independent of the methods that may be used by the Assembly for removing such Ministers. The original appointment of the Ministers is in the hands of the Governor, and the Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord asked me a general question, and I pray in aid, in reply, the legal phrase, "Dolus latet in generalibus." I will not answer it in general terms. I will only say that it must depend in each case upon the events into which it is desired to inquire, and upon the questions which are put. We are now commencing a new era in India, and it appeared to me yesterday, and still appears so to me to-day, that it would be extremely undesirable if this House were to attempt to undertake the function of controlling or criticising the Ministers who are responsible to the newly created legislative bodies. After all, the Ministers, however chosen, however selected, are the Ministers of those legislative bodies, they presumably have
their confidence, their salaries are voted by them. Talk of dyarchy! It would indeed be dyarchy if we supervised those Ministers as well as the legislative councils to whom they are responsible. For that reason I think that we had far better begin by abstaining from asking questions and criticising the Ministers who have been duly selected by the Governor, under the Statutory Powers which this House has given him for that purpose.

Sir H. CRAIK: On the point of Order. May I say, with great respect, that the question raised was not in regard to any criticism of the action of the Minister, who is now responsible to the Assembly in India. A question was raised with regard to the action of the Governor, who is subject to the Secretary of State. The question had relation, not to the action of the Minister, but solely to the action of the Governor in appointing the Minister; and we contend that the Governor, in so doing, was responsible to the Secretary of State, and, through him, to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question was intended to hit the Minister through the body of the Governor.

Sir W. DAVISON: My question was, was it a fact that the Governor had appointed to a Ministry in the Punjab a gentleman who had been convicted of rebellion against the Crown; and, as the Governor was appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, I thought that that was a question which might be asked in this House.

Viscount CURZON: The question that I asked the Minister was, was it a fact, as stated, that this man was a convicted rebel, and that he held jurisdiction over a largo number of Europeans? The statement appeared in the Press that he was a convicted rebel, and I wanted to know for information, whether it was so or not. To that you replied that it did not seem to be a matter for this Parliament. May I now ask whether I was entitled to have the information for which I asked, without any reference to criticising the action of anyone?

Mr. SPEAKER: If you say that a man is a convicted rebel, I think you criticise him. You do not do him any good.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand that a rebel is entitled to be a Minister if he is not convicted?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is leading me into deep waters.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to insurance against unemployment it is expedient:—

1. To authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(a) a contribution towards unemployment benefit and any other payment to be made out of the unemployment fund not exceeding one-quarter of the aggregate amount of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons in any year if those contributions were at the rate in the case of men of elevenpence and in the case of women of ninepence per week;
(b) the sums necessary for defraying the cost of providing an additional benefit at the weekly rate of two shillings for such persons formerly engaged in war service as are in receipt of unemployment benefit at any time between the commencement of the said Act and the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two;
(c) the sums necessary to enable seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged after the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, to be credited, under Section forty-one of The Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920, with one hundred and fifty-six contributions instead of with ninety contributions;

2. To authorise the Treasury to make, for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the unemployment fund under The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by the said Act, advances out of the Consolidated Fund not exceeding at any time ten million pounds, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund."— [Dr. Macnamara.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Committee, stage of this Resolution was taken, at a late hour last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Middles-brough (Mr. T. Thomson) moved an Amendment which would have had the
effect of equalising the contributions of men and women, the object benig eventually to persuade the House to equalise the benefits to be paid to men and women. It was nearly 11 o'clock, and, in accordance with the appeal of the Minister of Labour, my hon. Friend and myself did not press the matter, as we did not wish him to lose the Committee stage of his Resolution. As there is more time now, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could informs us whether, if this Resolution is passed as it is now, without the Amendment equalising the contributions of men and women, we shall be precluded from moving, during the Committee stage of the Bill itself, to make the benefits equal as between men and women. As was pointed out during the Committee stage last night, although the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to it, hon. Friends of mine and myself, when the original Bill went through, tried to get these benefits made equal; and the Minister then rode off by saying that this could not be done, because the Financial Resolution bound us down to a differentiation in the contributions. It seems to me that we may be jockeyed in the same way now, unless we have some assurance that this matter will be put right elsewhere. If the Resolution passes as it is now, we stereotype the present differentiation between the benefits to men and to women, and I know that many hon. Members of this House would like to see them equalised. We should like, therefore, to have that differentiation removed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could now give us the answer which time precluded us from receiving last night.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I speak subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but paragraph 1 (a) of the Financial Resolution does fix the contributions at 11d. per week in the case, of men, and 9d. per week in the case of women, and therefore, if this goes through, the contributions cannot be altered, and I should think, subject to what you may say, that any proposal to alter the benefits, unless the money were taken out of the Fund, and were not made a further charge upon the State, would require another Financial Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that I quite agree with the right hon. Gentle-
man in that. I think that the Amendment moved yesterday in Committee might equally be moved to-day in Committee. It is, however, really not a matter for me, but for the Chairman of Ways and Means when he is in the Chair. What cannot be done is to increase the amount which is to come out of the Exchequer. A diminution of the contribution made, or an equalisation of the contribution made, by the contributors, as between men and women, would, I think, be accepted by the Chair. I am, however, rather going out of my province, and I ought to leave the decision of the matter to the Chairman of the Committee.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether you would now accept from me the same Amendment which we tried to move last night?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already proposed the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," so that I cannot now accept an Amendment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry that that is the case. I take it that we can now only agree or disagree, and I am afraid we shall have reluctantly to accept the Resolution as it is.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Do I understand that an Amendment cannot be moved in Committee to increase the allowances to be given under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as it may lead to a further demand upon State funds which is not already provided for in the Resolution submitted by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. SPEAKER: Generally I may say that no Amendment can be accepted the effect of which would be to increase the amount of the Government contribution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(Rates of unemployment benefit.)

Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920 (in this
Act referred to as "the principal Act"), which provides that unemployment benefit shall, subject as thereinafter provided, be at the weekly rate of fifteen shillings for men and twelve shillings for women or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed, shall have effect as - though eighteen shillings and fifteen shillings respectively were therein substituted for fifteen shillings and twelve shillings.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out the words
eighteen shillings and fifteen shillings respectively were therein substituted for fifteen shillings and twelve shillings,
and to insert instead thereof the words,
for the rates specified therein there wore substituted the following:—

per week.


For the head of a family
40s.


For other than the head of a family
25s.


For each person wholly dependent upon a person entitled to benefit under the principal Act or this Act
5s."

The most appropriate way in which I can open the Debate on the, Committee stage of this Bill is by expressing to Mr. Speaker our sense of thankfulness, not merely on behalf of hon. Gentlemen behind me, but on behalf of all the Members of this House, for the great thought-fulness and sympathy with the unemployed which prompted the ruling and advice given by him earlier from the Chair, with regard to a proposal to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. Had that ruling not been given, the effect might have been to delay the payment of benefits to unemployed persons at least one week, and I am sure the Committee will desire me to express our thankfulness to Mr. Speaker for his kind consideration.

The Bill of which we are now considering the Committee stage is submitted to the House as a temporary measure to deal with what, we trust, is a momentary, though difficult, situation. It is strange that we have already had arguments from both sides of the House against the rate of benefit which is proposed from this side, for the reason that this is a temporary measure. I take the very opposite view. I take the view that, though a measure needs to be temporary to meet a temporary situation, it needs to be sufficient and not inadequate to meet that situation. There is one advantage I have in submitting this first Amendment considerably to raise the figure of unemploy-
ment benefit. It is the advantage that everyone in the House who has referred to this figure in the Bill admits that it is too low a figure of benefit wherewith to support the ordinary needs of the humblest homes in Britain. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman himself would claim that this figure of 18s. a week is sufficient in the sense that it is adequate to meet even the barest needs. I think I may claim that by common consent the figure in the Bill is admittedly too low for the purpose for which it is intended and therefore we propose to raise it. The figure which I submit of 40s. for the head of a family is a figure approved by the Labour Conference, and I am going to argue the question in relation to this figure of 40s. without going into the details that cover the various other figures which are consequent upon it.

It may be said from some quarters of the House that to give 40s. a week to those who have a claim on the ground that they are unemployed will ensure the continuance of idleness, because such a figure would tempt many people to shirk work because they could get 40s. by remaining idle. I am not going to address myself merely to one side of the case. I know that there are two, and no case is strengthened by giving attention only to one. It is clear, by proofs which have been adduced in this House, that thorn are cases—I do not know whether few or many, but, certainly, there are cases of people who even now by the benefits at present being paid are tempted to shirk jobs which in my judgment they ought to take. But we are not without a remedy in regard to the shirking, and if we are to increase substantially the amount of weekly benefit, we must strengthen the Regulations and there must be closer attention to the administration of the payment of benefit on lines which make it impossible to encourage idleness. Organised labour. I am certain, together with the employers, if both were called more into touch with the administration of the payment of benefits, could be of very great assistance in locating the shirker and in making it impossible to get money when work could have been got. I think, generally speaking, it is true that labour would be as careful in the administration of State money as it would be in the administration of its own, and
in very many instances, I do not know in how many, but certainly in a very large number of cases, of persons who are to receive benefit, the trade unions have to pay some portion of their own benefit as well—some portion of their own funds as well—and, in addition to the instinct, which is inherent in labour and trade union administration, of discouraging the shirker.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is moving to increase the benefit from 18s. to 40s. I should like to know whether the effect of this would be to put an increased contribution upon the State. If the effect of it is to put an increased contribution upon the State I submit that it is out of order. If, on the other hand, the effect of the Amendment is merely to put a contribution upon the fund and to render the fund bankrupt, which would be the effect of it, possibly the Amendment might be in order, but as this is such a very important point I think it would be advisable to get a ruling from the Chair upon the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I have, of course, considered this Amendment from the point of view taken by the right hon. Baronet. It appears to me that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would not be in itself to increase the Treasury contribution and therefore no duty lies upon the Chair to intervene in declining to put the question to the Committee. As to its effect, whether or not it would bankrupt the funds, that is a matter for argument, but not for the Chair. It is an answer, if true, to be made by the Government, and the Committee must take its decision. It is not one of those questions in which the Chair declines to put the question because it involves a contribution beyond the sum authorised in the Money Resolution.

Sir E. CARSON: If the Amendment were carried, if the State is not liable to pay the additional contribution towards the money, where is the money to come from, and is it useful to discuss an Amendment which could have no practical results if the State cannot be called upon to pay the additional contribution?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of the merits of the Amendment, with which the Chair is not concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to put it before the Committee.

Mr. CLYNES: I rather feared that some such point of order as the right hon. Baronet has brought forward would be raised, and I am glad of the shelter of your ruling to enable the Committee to proceed with the discussion of this question, for I submit that even though this Amendment, if carried, would compel a re-modelling of the financial provisions of the Bill, on the other hand it is worth while to discuss this matter, even though we anticipate it will not be carried at all, for very often discussions in this House serve some useful purpose, and if we never had to discuss anything unless we were certain of the fruit of the result the House would have much more spare time than it now has. It is not put forward for election purposes, or if it be, then our case can quite easily be taken from us by meeting this demand and giving the Government the credit of doing so handsome a thing for the unemployed. It will ensure a longer lease of life for the Coalition. We would not mind even continuing the life of the Coalition for a little time longer if we could relieve the enormous suffering and misery now being endured by millions of the unemployed class. There are things which may be said, things of some substance, I hope, in support of this Amendment. When a similar measure was considered in a very mixed Committee upstairs last year, that Committee went higher than the figure in the Bill. It went to the length of 20s. Since that time working-class difficulties have increased in relation to prices and the general question of the cost of living. Further, the Committee upstairs, untrammelled by any of the restraints of such Government or Ministerial leadership as Members of the House of Commons feel when they are acting in this House, felt that the figure of 20s. was far too low and that if money could have been found—I am not going to leave that side of the question out of my remarks—the feeling was that the figure of 20s. was far too low, and what, for the moment, I am putting to the House is that on all hands there seems to be held the view that 18s. will not do, and some very much higher figure is, therefore, a sensible proposal.
These are days when the general demand is for economy. There is a universal assent to this doctrine that the truest economy is often the wisest spend-
ing. Saving is frequently not economy at all. It leads to waste and to loss. I put to this Committee this view, that the future wealth resources of this country depend upon physique, a state of health and a condition of efficiency on the part of the mass of the wealth producer. If now they are underfed and improperly housed, if they have not good food and clothing for the next half-year or twelve months during which the privation of unemployment may be endured, they would be the less healthy, less efficient and less physically fit for the work which will have to face them in later years, and it is therefore true to say that it is worth the while of the State to pay at the right time. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing 18s. now because 15s. would no longer do. It may be that in a few months he will will come forward and propose some figure higher than 18s. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves is largely that he comes nearer and nearer to us in doing the right thing, but he tends to do it at the wrong time. He does it when it is a little too late, and we suggest to do the right thing now and not six or twelve months hence when you have conditions of deterioration of inefficiency, of a lowered physique and a less efficient body of wealth producers among the working classes than you have at present. I have no doubt hon. Members will say in answer to any of my statements that, if the figure of 18s. be too low, the figure of 40s. is too high. I am conscious that, judging by things which have found their way into the Press, there are people who look upon this figure of 40s. of weekly benefit as a fanciful proposal altogether, and as something, if not outrageous, certainly extravagant and improper.
Look at it on its merits. Before the War there was common agreement that the humblest worker, the ordinary labourer who swept the streets, should not have less than the barest living wage, and the barest living wage put by any humane social authority was not less than 30s. No one would say that a street sweeper should have less than 30s. Statistics and facts were gathered and proofs were adduced to impress that upon the national mind, and I doubt if there is any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who will dissent from that proposition. If, therefore, 30s. was the least that any ordinary humble labourer should receive as his weekly
income before the War, it is not unreasonable now to propose a figure of unemployment benefit which would not amount to more than 15s. on pre-War value. The sum of 40s. now is worth no more than 15s. was worth before the War. What virtually we are asking for is to raise the benefit to a level which would be half as much as it was said the humblest labourer should have as his pre-War income for the most ordinary work that could be performed. On the merits of the 40s. we say that there is no extravagance that can be proved. There is no such thing as proposing a sum likely to cause any extensive shirking amongst the masses of the wage-earning population. There is already in practice in more than one firm schemes of unemployment insurance. One firm of which I know, a very extensive firm in York, has a scheme of unemployment insurance which gives the unemployed connected with that establishment a much larger weekly sum than is pro-nosed in my Amendment. What is paid in that instance is a sum equal to half the earnings of the workman, plus additional payments in the event of the workman having dependants, which might make his weekly allowance for unemployment benefit at least 75 per cent, of his wages. If that can be done and the firm which can do it can remain prosperous, I see no reason why the State should not proceed by way of Insurance Acts and be as good as any one of the best type employers in any part of the country.
The question is, where is the money to come from? I am not going merely to say that that is the business of the Government, though, indeed, that is quite a just and proper statement to make. It is the business of the Government to meet proven needs. It is admitted that 18s. is too low. I think I have proved to the Committee that the figure we are asking for does not exceed the pre-War value of 15s. No hon. Member would assert that on merits this figure is too high, and that it will do more than meet the humblest needs in the humblest homes. Therefore, it has become the duty of the Government so to raise its finances and so to provide State support, in addition to the contributions from the employers, and the employed has to provide the necessary means of paying the benefit which we propose. If this cannot be done immediately, I return to the reasonable
suggestion which was made in last night's Debate. I come back to the fact that this measure is designed to meet a temporary situation. That situation may last 12 months or 6 months. This Bill is a Bill mainly to draw upon the resources of the past. My suggestion is that we should supplement the resources of the past by drawing upon the resources of the future. As a matter of administration it can be done. Funds have accumulated which now have given us resources exceeding £20,000,000. We are to draw upon these resources for the purpose of raising the benefit to 18s.
We hope and believe that this acute period of trade depression will disappear. Six, nine, or 12 months hence will find us emerged from these temporary difficulties, but it is in that period of trade depression that the physical suffering will occur and that physical deterioration and inefficiency will result. If we can hope for trade prosperity and believe that in 12 months or six months hence trade prosperity will return and we shall find that we have entered upon another period of making reserves, of building up great accumulations, my proposal to the Government is that just as they have resorted to the device of drawing upon past reserves they should devise means of drawing upon our future reserves, which are certain to accrue upon the basis of industrial prosperity and normal conditions of trade in the years that are ahead of us. That would be a piece of statesmanship and foresight of which the right hon. Gentleman is capable. I submit to the Committee that there is upon all grounds a case made out for my Amendment, and that there is no excuse or justification for fixing the unemployment benefit too low merely because it is a temporary Bill that we are dealing with to-day. The fact that the measure is a temporary measure is itself a justification and reason for raising the figure of benefit to such a level as will enable the workers to keep in conditions of fitness for the work that we are all anxious they should speedily resort to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend thinks that the obligation rests upon me to endeavour to ascertain much more closely than he sought to do where the resources would come from to pay the benefits which he proposes. All our insurance schemes have been based upon
the contributory principle. The employed person, the employer and the State have contributed. Under the main Act of last year and under the Bill now before us the State adds one-fourth more than the combined contributions of employer and employed. My right hon. Friend wants to depart from that principle, otherwise he might have put on the Paper a proposal for increasing the contributions to meet the increased cost. He has not done that. There are Amendments on the Paper to reduce the contribution. I am bound to point out that my right hon. Friend obviously wants to depart from the principle to which I have alluded. He will not deny that. I am not quite sure that I appreciate where he would get his fund from. Would it all come from the State, or would it be found by each particular industry? If found by each particular industry, would it be the result of contributions made by the employers and the employed in that industry? I think I am entitled to an answer. These are questions which my right hon. Friend is bound to answer. I will assume, and I do not think I am far out, that it is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that this ought to be a State charge. That is my assumption, based upon his speech, and he does not dissent. May I go further and say that by his silence he gives consent? My right hon. Friend does not estimate what this would cost. Of course it would bankrupt the fund.

Mr W. THORNE: In how long?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The fund would be hopelessly bankrupt.

Mr. W. THORNE: Tell us in what length of time.

5.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA: When my right hon. Friend gives me his estimate I will tell him how long the £20,000,000 in the fund will last. He has not given me his estimate. I suggest, with all respect, that it is not altogether business to put this proposal before us without telling us how the fund is to be built up, where the money is to come from, if the contributory principle is to be departed from, if it is to be a State charge or if it is to be found by the industry; if so, is it to be found out of the profits of the industry, which is one of his suggestions, I believe, or is it to be found by contributions as between employer and employed. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will say that
it should be a State charge, that the State should meet it whatever it may cost, and why should I boggle at a charge on the Exchequer in the present state of affairs. To use a phrase of his own, "mortgage the credit of the State." That is a very easy thing to say, but does, my right hon. Friend realise that the more I mortgage the credit of the State the more I widen the gap between the nominal and real value of wages? We often hear it said that we must get back to real values in wages. Mortgaging the credit of the State by any number of millions would not help in that direction. The more I do that the more I widen and accentuate the gap between real and nominal values, which is already bad enough as a result of the smash up of human affairs due to the War. I am sure that with great sincerity my right hon.. Friend has presented a superficially rosy picture in putting in the Labour programme this scale of benefits, but that picture has a very disagreeable frame round it. My right hon. Friend is pleased, not for the first time—I do not complain—to belittle what the State is endeavouring to do in the direction of trying to find mitigation and alleviation of the hardship of unemployment. What have we endeavoured to do under the contributory system to which the State adds a quarter under the main Act to the contributions of employed and employers and will continue to add a quarter of the increased contributions provided for in this Bill? Between now and the end of June, 1922, the benefits payable under this Bill will amount to 45¼ millions of money.

Mr. W. THORNE: Less than a million a week.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Look at what the State has done and is doing. Since the Armistice the State has provided by way of out-of-work donations to civilians and ex-service men £62,000,000. Forty-five-and a quarter millions is the benefit payable under this Bill if and when it becomes law, and over and above finding £4,500,000 a year as the contribution of the Exchequer under the Act of 1920, which is its annual charge, this Bills adds to that £781,000 a year as the net result of the increased contributions by the State, and the Exchequer shoulders £2,000,000 over and above that from now to the end
of June, 1922, in order to raise the ex-service man's benefit by 2s above the 18s. of the Insurance Act, making it 20s. as at present.

Mr. J. JONES: Less than you spend on the Black and Tans in Ireland.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That £2,000,000 will be a capital charge from now to the end of June, 1922. Looking at all these figures—the £62,000,000 for out-of-work donation, the £4,500,000 for insurance, the £781,000 additional to that, the £2,000,000 for the ex-service men, and the £45,500,000—and remembering the terrific strain which the War has thrown upon the resources of the country, that is not a bad performance. It is out of all relation, as it ought to be, with anything that was ever attempted in the past as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and here we are, with all the deadly embarrassment of a war which cost this country more than all the wars which the British people ever previously engaged in put together, trying to make this provision. I do not think it can be said to be a provision which, after all, deserves the rather belittling comment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes).
May I say, with great respect, I heartily concur in what he said, if it is competent for us to do so, in respect of the suggestion of Mr. Speaker as to the urgency of this Bill. It is imperative that, such as it is in the mind of my right hon. Friend, this provision should be made available at once. His proposal, as he must see, at once upsets the whole scheme and bankrupts the fund. As my right hon. Friend knows, the benefit is already exhausted both as regards the ex-service men and the civilian men and women who enjoy the benefits for which they have contributed under the Insurance Act. If it was ever true that he who gives quickly gives twice it is true now, and I do therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend not to delay the passage of this Bill unduly. But I wish to direct his attention to one point. If he says the 18s. is not enough—it was 7s. in the old days, and then 11s. and then 15s.—the path which I suggest he ought to pursue is to be found in Section 18 of the main Act, which lays down that if it appears that more satisfactory insurance can be secured in any industry than that
provided in the Act it is open to employés and employers to get together and, on the foundation of this State provision, to build up a super-structure which would be more satisfactory to my right hon. Friend. I have over and over again stated, and I now state once more, that I will give every encouragement I can to the building up, through the special scheme provision which is to be found in Section 18 of the main Act, of the superstructure of an insurance against unemployment which, in any particular industry, if the employers and employés like to get together, will give them more adequate provision than the Act contains. In the circumstances I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I understand that the procedure of the House will make it impossible to take an Amendment which I have down in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle, East (Major Barnes) if this Amendment is defeated, and therefore I would like to say a word or two on behalf of the alternative proposal to substitute 20s. instead of 18s. I am aware that yesterday when this suggestion was made, and made in all quarters of the House, the Minister was not able to consider it very favourably. He rather turned a deaf ear to it; but wisdom cometh in the morning, and I hope that on further reflection he may find it possible to meet the case so ably put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting for some increase, by accepting the Amendment substituting 20s. I think I can show in a word or two that it can be done without exceeding in any way the financial arrangements of the scheme. The Minister says he is going to find the money by taking £15,000,000 from the reserve fund of £20,000,000 which has accumulated since the original Act was passed. If we are going to take £15,000,000 from £20,000,000, there is no great principle involved in taking the other five, which is the amount required, according to the Minister, in order to make the 18s. up to 20s. during the next year. I submit the point the Committee should consider is the position of the country in the immediate present and during the next twelve months. We are as the right hon. Gentleman has said, passing through a great industrial crisis, and it behoves us from every point of
view to meet that to the fullest extent possible. I submit it would be perfectly sound finance to take the risk which I suggest. We took risks during the War to win the War. Surely we can take risks to establish peace at home. It is well worth while, in the exceptional circumstances of to-day, to take the further risk of depleting that fund which you are going to mortgage to the extent of £15,000,000 by taking the extra £5,000,000 if necessary, in order to make this payment one of 20s.
Even in this Bill itself there is a suggestion, according to the actuarial figures, that possibly the contributions which had been levied will leave a balance over and above the payments to be made. In Clause 2 (3) there is provision made whereby, after a period of time, the Minister may, if he sees fit, reduce the contributions which are provided for by this Bill. That, therefore, assumes that the actuaries are in some doubt, as to whether they have not levied contributions which will be more than is absolutely necessary, and again I say the situation is so serious it is worth taking the risk that they have over-estimated, and you might not have to call on the whole of the £5,000,000 in reserve from the accumulated funds. I do not want to labour the point. The ground has been already covered as to the general desire that we should have adequate maintenance. But I would put this further point. This huge machinery you are establishing to administer the 18s. will be just as costly as administering the 20s. Therefore my proposal will not add to the cost of the scheme in any way. It is sound, therefore, from that point of view. The Minister suggested that what we are doing to-day is out of relation to anything that has been done in the past. I submit with all respect that, considering the depreciated value of money, the 18s. which he is offering to-day is no more than what was done in the original Act. Surely we have advanced in the collective consciousness of the nation beyond the stage of 1911, and we should turn down as being utterly inadequate to-day that which was equal to the standard required in 1911.
I hope the Minister will really seriously consider the point of whether he cannot meet that general expression of opinion which came from all sides of the House yesterday that 18s. is inadequate. It is
not suggested that 20s. is adequate, but it is infinitely better than 18s. One reply the Minister gave yesterday was that the trade union funds would contribute to help the worker to eke his way out. But he knows that does not apply to more than half of the industrial workers of the country, and if he looks to one-half being able to help out by contributions, what is going to happen to the other half who have no funds to draw upon? As a matter of fact, owing to the amount and extent of unemployment which already exists and which, from what one knows of industry generally, is likely to be very much worse, these trade union funds will be soon depleted, and even the 50 per cent, will not have anything to supplement the State benefit from. It is impossible to think that a man can keep a wife and family on 18s. a week. It is not economical that he should be thrust upon charitable agencies and other sources in order to eke out his existence.
There should be one system, one payment, one method of administration if we are to get a better return both to the-individual and to the State. I suggest the Minister might very favourably consider this request, and even if the State-in the future has to make good the drawings it has made on the reserve fund, it would only be doing for Labour what it has already done for industry as a whole. During the War we had subsidised wheat, we had to subsidise railways, we had to subsidise the coal mines and the iron and steel industry. If that wore a legitimate charge for the purpose of winning the War, it is not unfair to ask that Labour, suffering from the aftermath of the War, should also have the same claim on the-State in order to supplement the small amount granted under this particular Bill. I therefore appeal to the Minister to consider favourably the moderate proposal which I have tabled for 20s.

Major BARNES: I cannot understand why the Minister has not given the least indication that the Government are going to improve on the conditions of this Bill. I could understand them refusing that Amendment, because it does involve not only a change in policy but such a large amount as might very well stagger the Minister at the present time, though I believe that the Government might have accepted even that Amendment if it had been impressed as much with the necessity of expenditure at home as it has been im-
pressed with the necessity abroad. The Minister said that he had not estimated the cost of the proposals. On the figures given yesterday it was stated that something like 10 per cent, of the employed persons are going to be out. Ten per cent, of 10,000,000 is 1,000,000. If you average the proposal out at £2 a week all round it would mean if accepted a probable liability of £100,000,000 during the next year for unemployment insurance. I can quite understand that £100,000,000 seems a staggering amount to spend for such a purpose; but these amounts are all relative. This House has passed with cheerful acquiescence very much larger sums spent for very much worse purposes. I cannot help having forcibly before my mind the fact that this particular Bill stands in the way of an Estimate which we shall have next week under the railway agreement. When they come before us what we shall be considering will not be a question of spending £100,000,000 for a million people to save them from destitution, but we shall be considering the question of satisfying a claim of from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000 by a very small section of the people of this country under these agreements.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Eight hundred thousand.

Major BARNES: That figure brings the thing more into perspective. The claim under the railway agreements is a claim for from £100,000,000 to £200,000,00 for 800,000 people. That claim will be urged with great force and eloquence by my hon. Friend opposite, and we shall have a very much fuller House than this and a great deal more interest in the matter, and we shall find that claim pressed—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That will be the time to discuss it.

Major BARNES: I bow to your ruling, but as probably the effect of my illustration is felt, I am content to leave it. If the Minister had told us that he was going to accept the Amendment I think that we should have been so overcome by astonishment as to be incapable of any further action for the rest of the evening, but he not only refuses that but he has not given the least indication that he is going to improve by a single penny on the present proposition. I agree with
my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) in pressing upon his notice the proposal of at least raising the 18s. to 20s. He cannot say that it will bankrupt the fund—

Dr. MACNAMARA: It will wipe it out.

Major BARNES: The fund is not necessarily bankrupt because the money is used for the purposes for which it was contributed. Why cannot he give the people back at least their own money? He is not asked to find a single penny from the Treasury. All he is asked to do is not to hang on to this money which is wanted now until the time comes when it will not be wanted, but to spend the money at the time when it will do the most good. Somebody has infused an amount of caution into the right hon. Gentleman which has not always characterised him. He would not occupy the exalted position which he now occupies if all the actions of his life had been characterised by the caution which is now shown. He has taken risks all along his career. I remember a risk which he took at a place called Leamington which I thought he faced very well. Let him face this risk of spending this extra £5,000,000. If he refuses to do this we shall be driven to the conviction that there is something more behind this than appears.

Dr. MACNAMARA: You will be wrong in that.

Major BARNES: I am going to give you what appears to me to suggest grounds for the suspicion. We cannot feel that the Minister himself would refuse it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The reason why I thought it not expedient was that it would wipe out the £5,000,000 which I hoped would be in the fund when the period 1922 has been reached.

Major BARNES: All we were told yesterday was that the Minister does not want to wipe that out because he wants to have it at the end of the time. That does not appear to us a sufficient reason, or a reason which convinces even himself. We feel that there is something more behind it, that the money is being withheld because it is not desired to pun the benefit up, but it is desired to maintain a pressure upon these people which will drive them to accept lower wages.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Major BARNES: The Minister must face that. We have at the present moment a movement for the reduction of wages all up and down the country showing itself in all different sorts of ways, and all kinds of means are being used to bring about the acceptance of lower rates of wages. What does appear to us in the adamantine obstinacy of the Minister is that the Government in this measure are lending themselves to that policy. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) that all the pressure on the Government to increase the provision has been put on so that they may understand the proportions of the question and try to make generous provision for it. The present request is to hand back to people their own money subscribed by them, and the Minister when he refuses that must face the suspicion that there is more behind it than ordinary caution, and that the Government is lending itself to a policy which has for its object a reduction of the general standard of the life and the well-being of the workers of the country. I acquit the Minister himself of any desire of the kind, but I cannot feel that he has got behind his own natural disposition the backing which the more bellicose dispositions of some other Members of the Cabinet obtain when they are presenting their favourite scheme. It is not yet too late for the Minister, before this Bill goes much further, to give some indication that this not unreasonable request is not going to be ignored.

Major NALL: It is a matter of great regret that the Minister of Labour has not answered the real point which arises on this Amendment. That is the question of differentiation. It is true he stated on the Second Reading that that could not be gone into owing to the urgency of the Bill; but the real urgency of this question in the country is that men with families are hardest hit, that while women who are drawing 12s. in many cases are so well off with 12s. that they will not take other employment, a man when he gets 18s. will be very little better off than he is to-day. That is the urgent question, and it is a matter of great regret that this all-important question of differentiation in these benefits has not been dealt with in this Bill. The sum total of the proposals in the Bill is
simply to give another 3s. a week, which is practically nothing here and now, and so far as the vast majority of the beneficiaries are concerned. There are to-day vast numbers of women who have very little prospect of securing employment in various trades in which they have lately been engaged, it is difficult even as it is to get them to take up any other line. How much more difficult will it be to induce those who are already content to remain idle on 12s. to take work if they rind they can get 15s.? The absurdity of the difference of only 3s. between the man with a family and a single woman who is probably living with two or three other single women in one house is too great for words.
I enter my protest against a Department which is supposed to exist for the special purpose of looking after the workers of the country when this is the sum total of its labours on their behalf. This is only one of the reasons of the absolute futility of one of the most expensive of the new Departments which the Government continue in existence. I do not think that the Ministry of Labour realises to what extent the demand for women domestic work exists in the country. In scores of roads in the suburbs of Manchester, in thousands of houses up and down the country women are breaking down under the strain of household duties, because they cannot get any assistance. I am not speaking of wealthy women who can afford to pay wages sufficiently high to attract help. There are whole roads round Manchester, whole roads in almost every suburb of the great cities of this country where housewives are unable to get any domestic help of any sort, and are breaking down in health under the strain of looking after a family and doing the whole work of their own houses. That situation is bolstered up.

Mr. J. JONES: How about workmen's wives?

Major NALL: The same thing is true of artisans' wives who were accustomed formerly to get help and are unable to get it now. Women are breaking down. Within the last few weeks a medical man has told me that he has never had so many cases of break-down amongst women, and it is because they are unable to get help in their home. Here, without
any proper discrimination as to the needs of the individual, we are deliberately raising to 15s. the benefit that will be paid to women. It is obvious that in many cases 15s. is inadequate, but it is equally obvious that the small sum paid to a man with a family is much more grossly inadequate. It is a matter for extreme regret that the Ministry of Labour, which exists to carry out such duties as this Bill will entail, is unable to give any real hope of assistance to those men who find themselves and their large families on the verge of starvation, while at the same time it is encouraging scores of women to remain idle. Although we cannot go into details, I hope that when an opportunity arises to deal with the Estimates of a Department which is showing such a singular inability to discharge its duties, we shall mark our disapproval of it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wish to give a silent vote on this Amendment. From what the Minister has said, it is quite clear that the Amendment would lead to the bankruptcy of the whole scheme, and that seems to be generally admitted; but I do not find in the speech of the Minister of Labour adequate reasons for not raising the benefit to the sum of 20s. All that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make clear to us to-day is this—that if it was done the money chest would be empty. In speeches made from this side of the House I have not yet gathered that it is the view that that would be an unmitigated disaster. It would certainly be an acute difficulty, but acute difficulties have to be dealt with in a great crisis like the present. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government have not given sufficient consideration to the urgency of the matter and to the fact that an increase of benefit from 18s. to 20s. would be of the greatest assistance. The sum involved is round about £5,000,000. It is the kind of sum with which we are accustomed to deal very lightly in this House. During the past two years such amounts have been thrown about after very little discussion and for very slight reasons. I suggest that if that £5,000,000 had been brought within this Financial Resolution it would have been well worth while from all sorts of points of view. An increase of the benefit to 20s. is well worth the risk even to the extent of the absorption of the
whole of the Reserve Fund, and I think it would receive a very large amount of support from the Committee as a whole. Another point relates to differentiation. I suppose it scarcely arises strictly within this Amendment. We all regret profoundly that some such step as that has not been taken. Administratively it would be comparatively easy. When I vote for these words to be left out I do not wish to be taken as voting for the insertion of 40s. Of course, that would wipe out the whole scheme as things stand at present. I vote as a protest against the position of the Government in limiting the benefit to 18s., and I do so on what I hold to be sound financial and great social reasons.

Mr. FRANCE: I am glad to have had so great an authority on procedure as the last speaker indicate how one can vote as a protest against no concessions on the part of the Government without committing oneself to the precise figures in this Amendment—figures which, I think the Committee agrees, would make the scheme impracticable. I differ from the last speaker in one respect. He did not think that the subject of differentiation was germane to this Amendment. I understood we were discussing an Amendment which contained the principle of differentiation. I certainly endorse very heartily the view that the figure of 18s. or even of 20s. is inadequate for a man who has the responsibility of a household and a family. I am quite prepared to take some risks with this fund, if I could be sure that the money would be spent in a way that would relieve the very serious strain being put upon those who can least afford to bear it. I wish it had been possible, without supporting these figures, to get the Government to agree to the principle contained in the Amendment, namely, that there should be a differentiation between the, head of a family and the man or woman who has not that responsibility. I would urge the Government to consider whether, even at this hour, they could not without much difficulty use the money which is available It is a time of great national emergency. It is sometimes the fashion for hon Members opposite, when anyone who sits elsewhere ventures an opinion, to sneer as if we had no right to express our views on such a matter. This suggestion of the right hon. Member for Platting is, as far as I know, the first suggestion which emphasises the point that the head of a household should
have special consideration. The principle is already established. The married man has certain concessions in the matter of Income Tax and there are other ways in which those who have extra responsibility have to bear a smaller burden. It is quite true, as has been said, that you could not have a smaller contribution from the unmarried than from the married man, because that would be a temptation to the employer to choose the one rather than the other. In this matter I consider that the State has a special obligation, and that at a time of crisis like the present, the State, having the money in this fund, might increase the amount payable to the married man as the head of the family without interfering seriously with the normal machinery of benefit. It is not a difficult thing to ascertain whether a man's or a woman's claim as head of a household is satisfactory.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: The majority of the speakers yesterday and to-day have been sympathetic as far as the inadequacy of the benefit is concerned. The majority of speakers have agreed that the money which has been built up in reserve in the Unemployed Fund ought now to be used, because a national emergency has arisen. What business man is there in the House who would not see that a firm with which he was associated built up a reserve fund so that when the firm came upon dark days and bad trade, the reserve could be drawn upon to tide over those dark days? The £22,000,000 which have been built up in this fund wore looked upon as the reserve built up by the workers of this country in this contributory scheme of unemployment insurance, and that that reserve ought to be taken advantage of to-day to tide them over what is after all only an abnormal period. The Minister of Labour wants to keep £5,000,000 in the fund by the end of July, 1922, but he has given no reason why, except that he does not want the fund to be bankrupt. Might I put it to him that the exercise and use of those £5,000,000 during this abnormal period might save the lives of a number of people. An ex-soldier was picked up dead the other day, having committed suicide in Hampstead. He had searched for months to get work—he was not kept out of work because of the building trade unions, but was a motor driver unable to find employment. Would not the spending of the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to keep merely as a re-
serve be the means of saving perhaps the lives of quite a number of people, as well as enabling children to have some nourishment which otherwise they might be denied? We are asking that the head of a family should have a certain sum allowed in proportion to the number of people dependent upon him, and we ask that single men and single women should also have certain sums out of the fund. An hon. and gallant Member below the gangway suggested that some single women were living riotous lives on 12s. a week.

Major NALL: I did not say they were living riotous lives, but that there are a number of women in the country who are quite content to remain idle so long as they can draw 12s. a week.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like the hon. and gallant Member to go on an exploration tour to find any women who can live to-day on 12s. a week. We ask that the principle of payment according to dependents should be adopted. That principle was conceded in the first donation given after the War. The Government, because an election was then pending—

Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, oh.

Mr. MACLEAN: I withdraw that, and say that possibly the Government gave this donation and, having decided to give it, the election came along—not as a consequent event, but as something which had been in their minds even before the Armistice. The Government, at any rate, conceded the principle there that the head of a family with dependents ought to have certain allowances. Now we are told that that cannot be done, but that a flat rate scale has to be paid to the men and to the women apart altogether from dependents. We think that the Government, having once conceded the principle, could very well allow it to come under this Bill. The Minister put a series of questions to the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), and wanted to know where the money was to come from. That is a question that we have always been asked when we suggest any scheme involving expenditure, but no Cabinet Ministers ask this House or any section of the House where the money is to come from when they embark on great adventures, and spend £100,000,000 in trying to help adventurers in other parts of the world. It is only when it is a ques-
tion of attending to the wealth producers of this country that we are asked where the money is to come from. We have heard it so often, and the same question was asked when we suggested Old Ago Pensions, and also when we suggested a wider scheme of education for the children of the worker.
In this case the workers have already built up a reserve of £22,000,000, and the money can come partly from there. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it might come from schemes where industries would be asked to look after their own unemployment. Members on these benches do not view favourably any scheme where an industry must support the unemployed, because under such a scheme we should find that the general workers generally come off worse, because they drift from one industry to another as one becomes busy and another slack, until it is impossible for them to be insured within any given industry. We believe that unemployment is a social problem that must be supported by the community. We say that we are not averse from going into the question of apportioning the contribution, and if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to raise the scale of benefit, we are not averse from going into the question of fixing a higher rate of contribution. We suggest to him and to the Members of the House that he ought to consider in all seriousness the situation as it exists to-day. Does he consider 18s. a week for the head of a family, 15s. for a woman, and 20s. for an ex-soldier sufficient with prices as they stand to-day? How would any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House face the question of poverty, of feeding any dependents relying upon him to bring them food and sustenance, with only 18s. or 20s. to take into the household at the end of the week? It is a human question that has arisen out of the War, and it is a question that we must consider as an abnormal problem, just as we considered the other War problems, and have settled them in the light of their being War problems. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give more sympathetic consideration to our requests. He is one who has prided himself—and we on these benches and working men outside always look with pride to one who has risen from the ranks into a high position either in
industry or in the State. His sympathy must be with the class from which he came, and we appeal to him to give more sympathetic consideration to our Amendment, and even if he cannot give the full amount we ask, at least to give a substantially higher sum than he proposes.

Mr. G. BARNES: I suppose as a matter of form that what we are now discussing is 40s., 25s., and 5s. I am against this for reasons I have already given, inside and outside this House. I may make a passing reference to something that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes). He admitted the truth of the statement that I made the other day, that if a man is assured of a certain amount of income by the State, anything like approximating to maintenance, the incentive to work will at all events be lessened, and I think he even went further and said it would be eliminated. I am glad to have that admission. He went on further to say that he had a proposal to make to get over that difficulty, but I have not yet heard him make it. I think he has in his mind the association of trade unions with the State.

Mr. CLYNES: I said that, and also the necessity for tightening up the regulations to prevent malingering.

Mr. BARNES: I did not hear him. I beg my right hon. Friend to remember that if he asks the State to make a maintenance allowance, the need for trade unions, in the mind of the average man, will have gone, and therefore your association of the trade unions with the State will have gone with it. However, I do not want to go further into that matter. I have already put my case, both here and outside. I want now to say a word or two on the question of differentiation. It is a very important principle and not one to be lightly pitched into a Bill at the last moment. Let me say further that it not only upsets all actuarial calculations—because I suppose the Government have not the number of married as compared with single men, and before you could do any differentiation you would have to get that, information—but let me say further that it cuts into another principle, to which I know the trade unions attach some importance, and that is that benefits shall be proportionate to contributions. Up to now, so far as I know,
no trade union has admitted the principle of differentiation. They regard a single man as entitled to exactly the same as a married man, because he pays the same contribution. That may be right or wrong, but while you are dealing with a Bill which, after all, does bring the trade unions into association with you in administration, you cannot lightly introduce a principle of that character.

Mr. FRANCE: Does that apply to the emergency or strike pay?

Mr. BARNES: I can only say that on the whole the principle does apply in the rules of all trade unions so far as I know, but when strikes take place, all sorts of irregular and abnormal things also take place, and voluntary contributions are very often distributed according to a man's needs.

Mr. WATERSON: I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will not desire to mislead the House, but is it not a fact that by trade union regulations there are always allowances made for children?

Lieut-Colonel J. WARD: Where?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BARNES: No, there are not, so far as my knowledge is concerned. My hon. Friend may know better than I, or some cases that are not within my knowledge. I do not mean to say I have got all the knowledge about the trade unions. What I have said is that within my experience I do not know of rules of trade unions that make any differentiation as between the man who is married and the man who is single, provided they both pay the same contribution. I will make bold to say that, although my hon. Friend may bring forward exceptional cases, I think that statement will be borne out by the facts. I want to add my voice to the appeal made on the other side, and to wind up by making a suggestion. I wish to follow hon. Members who have made an appeal to my right hon. Friend to raise the amount to 20s. In the first place, as I said yesterday, I am not at all alarmed by the statement about the fund being depleted by July next year. That is 16 months ahead of us, and "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," so far as I am concerned. After all, the Treasury is the power behind all these schemes, and if the Fund is depleted at any particular time, the Treasury must come in and make
it good, or set up a scheme whereby you get further contributions from employers and employed. But there is another thing. The right hon. Gentleman bases his statement upon a certain estimate—it is not an actuarial calculation. He tells us that, provided there is an average of 9½ per cent, unemployed for the next 16 months, then the Fund will be depleted, except for the sum of £5,000,000. Have we ever had a time when there has been an average of 9½ per cent, unemployed for 16 months?

Mr. W. THORNE: You have got it now.

Mr. BARNES: Of course you have, but you are going through an abnormal period now—that is my point. It seems to me that, if you ever have a time when, for a period of 16 months, you have an average of 9½ per cent, unemployed, then you stand a very good chance of a revolution coming upon you. I had occasion to look over the figures some time ago in connection with a matter I was investigating. I went back to 1868, and, if my memory serves me aright, depressions occurred in 1869, 1879, 1885, and 1897 or 1898, and so on. If you go back over the whole of them with the exception of 1879, and then only in certain trades specially affected—for instance, in shipbuilding, for a few months, you had 17 per cent.—but with that exception, you had no period of depression when you had 9½ per cent, out of work for more than two or three months. Therefore, I say if you are going to base your calculation upon 9½ per cent. being out of work from now to July next year, it seems to me you are taking a figure which is far too high. I do not know whether you have taken it so high in order to frighten us, but, even if borne out by the facts, I still would not be frightened, and, therefore, I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give that 20s. It is not only the difference between 18s. and 20s. This 20s. has figured in the minds of many of us for years back as a sort of standard figure. It would give a great deal of satisfaction, more than is measured by the difference between 18s. and 20s. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to put this to the Treasury, to see if he cannot move their hearts, as I am sure he will open his own to give that 20s. Now I come to my practical suggestion. Cannot we make a deal upon this subject? The right hon. Member for Miles Platting has put forward a pro-
position, which, with all deference to him, I do not think he can hope to secure as an Amendment to this Bill. He knows he cannot get this Bill amended in that way. Might I then make a suggestion that if the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench springs to the 20s., he might get the support of my hon. Friends opposite? I commend that to both sides.

Mr. HAYDAY: One might be led to suppose, from the arguments we have heard again to-night, that this financial problem is one that has been suddenly sprung upon the Committee, and that the problem itself is quite a new one. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who has such intimate knowledge of the working of trades unions, by long experience and association, knows full well that for many years at British Trades Union Congresses, resolutions have been passed asking for the establishment of a Labour Ministry, in order that the Labour Ministry, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, should act as the barometer, the gauge glass, of the rise and fall of industry in volume, and in order to gauge as near as possible the periods of unemployment as they arise. Consequently, it is no new problem, and it ought not to be made the principal theme to-night that, if this Amendment were carried, the unemployed would suffer, because it could not be put into immediate operation, and because there was not a sufficiency of funds to meet that increased obligation. I want to know, therefore, what has the Labour Ministry been doing since its establishment in conjunction with the Board of Trade, that it has not been able to keep, as it were, its finger on the pulse of industry to gauge and prepare for these periods of industrial depression which are constantly occurring. If it had, it would have been prepared with a balance at its disposal, and sufficient to deal with something even more voluminous in the total amount than that contained in our Amendment. The Labour Minister, in his remarks this evening, gave us some huge figures showing what really the Government had been prepared to do, summed up in pounds sterling, for the purpose of relieving the distress, but the Labour Minister forgot that we have passed through a period that left behind it many, many thousands of men who
had been in the service of the nation in its more physical sense, and the nation's obligation, surely, was to take on the financial burden of making provision for those ex-service men. Instead of doing that, they have shelved their responsibility by placing all ex-service men now unemployed upon the accumulated funds of the previous civilian contributors, and truly it may be said that those ex-service men, who under the 1911 Act, helped towards the building up of that fund; but the State, instead of* relieving the fund by making some direct payment to its ex-service men of £l, 30s., or 40s.— we would prefer, of course, that the ex-service men should be treated exactly on the same lines as this proposal in our Amendment, as against the £l proposed by the Government in this Bill—but, instead of putting thorn on the fund, you could have had that reserve purely to meet that obligation to the civilians, and the State retained its full obligation so far as the ex-service men were concerned.
Much was said by one hon. Member as to the question of differentiation. The Amendment really does provide a differentiation. This is not any attempt at sentiment, pure and simple, but a business proposition. The family man point of view has never been properly taken into consideration by this House or by the Government; neither have they taken into full consideration the position of the widow who has a family to maintain. I know it is said, "But look what we have done. It was originally 7s. in 1911, and we have come along now to 18s." You have made no advance at all. As a matter of fact, the 18s. now proposed will be worse than the 7s. in 1911, so that we have gone backwards. At the time that Act was passed, I know it was suggested that it was simply a first timid attempt at instituting something which it was hoped would become more permanent and adequate as time wont on. Instead of becoming more adequate, it become more inadequate. It is adding injury to injury. Think of 18s. going to a household where there are six below the age, say, of 14, or where there are possibly seven children below the age of 16, which is first qualifying age for participation in an unemployment donation. Apart from rent, if you were
to take the lowest possible standard, it is impossible to maintain a person under the age of 16, even with five or six in the household, at anything less than from 12s. to 15s., with food and clothing alone. It is said, "Where is the money to come from?" We do not pretend, even if this Amendment were carried, and in full operation, it would make full and adequate provision for all the requirements of the recipients. We say it will only represent less than two-thirds, and in some cases less than a quarter, of what the income would be were those individuals in their ordinary full occupation, even in the lowest-paid classes of employment in the country.
The way it ought to be put is: What is the value of a life to the nation? The Labour Minister says, "Oh, but we do not put our proposals on such a high basis as that; what we want to do is to keep the men and women, the human unit of the nation, at least in such a state that they will be able, when the time arrives, rapidly to recover from any little depreciation that may have set in now: we want to make provision so that that depreciation shall not be so vital as permanently to undermine the constitution of these various individuals." But I put it to hon. Members, that your 18s. per week for the head of a family is not going to do that. You are going permanently to undermine and unwittingly to help in the decay of the nation, because, remember, if these periods last for any length of time, whilst under other circumstances I am an optimist, I am sorry sometimes to feel very dull and heavy—as everyone must who has any human feeling or sentiment about him—when thinking of these matters. In this connection we must remember that many at present receiving the unemployment donation are men and women who were not in receipt of the highest wages during the industrial boom of the last few years. Most of them are huge aggregations of the lowest-skilled and semi-skilled type of worker whose wages would be anything from, say, £3 6s. to £4 per week, and who never had an opportunity to make any provision at all for the future. You have this fact also to face, that during the war period food substitutes were in being, and whilst the purchasing power was greater than at the present moment, yet the food was not purchasable, and now that foods is more
plentiful and purchasable there are no wages, and it is difficult, therefore, to retain sound health and physique.
I do put it that if we value the existence of this nation at its truest and highest level we will, I think, consider that 18s. is not sufficient for the purposes indicated, and we surely cannot say by the passing of this Bill, without amendment, you provide a sufficient amount to maintain a man and his family from the decay and depreciation to which I have referred. It will certainly lead to drifting on and on so that when the time does come for the man who has got work to put forth physical energy again his physique will have been undermined and the nation be the loser thereby. I speak as one with a long personal experience. I am certainly one of those who has had many weeks' unemployment, though I do not desire to boast of the fact. Those of us who know—and there are some—appreciate fully the difficulty that under these circumstances the less fortunate of our citizens must be under. I would urge that something more should be done than the Government proposals indicate. Do not let us say we cannot find the money. Here is a question of the life of the nation. In 1914 there was no suggestion that we could not find the money.
I notice that in the Press it is stated that there is £190,000,000 of Excess Profits Duty this year. As I said yesterday the Excess Profits Duty comes from industry. It represents the joint, effort of those engaged in industry, those who manage, control it and otherwise work it. Even if it does not total more, the industrial workers who at the moment are unemployed have just as much right to call upon that accumulation of £190,000,000 that is the result of joint effort as they have called upon the joint accumulation of the £22,000,000, which is also the result of joint efforts. One word about the single woman who, it is said, will not work because of the unemployment benefit of 12s. That is not my experience. The city, one of whose constituencies I have the honour to represent, in its industries employs mainly woman labour. My experience there is that our womenfolk, keeping up as they endeavour to do, and maintaining that respectability that makes us all proud of them, desire to work properly. To suggest that they would never bother about work or wages if they get the 12s. per week is wrong.
I know you can always keep throwing at their heads the suggestion that they may become domestic servants, but domestic service under conditions which restrict their freedom and generally are not always what they should be is not what one would care for our daughters. I have not, however, known, where wages have been at all commensurate with the duties they are called upon to perform, where work has been refused by those who have had a few years' experience of domestic service. Certainly, I do know this, it must be a struggle for any single person, male or female, to be able to get along on 18s. and 15s. respectably. I should not care, even under these circumstances, to take a boarder in and give board and residence at anything like the amount that would be the income from the unemployed donation. I do feel, whether this Committee agrees with me or not, or does or does not agree with our Amendment, that it is still an amount not representing the full measure necessary to maintain in bodily health the recipients of it. I, therefore, urge that, as every hon. Member seems to feel that there ought to be some differentiation in the rate, and that the head of the house ought to have some higher sum than the single individual, that the last word has not been said upon the matter. I trust the Minister of Labour will see to what extent it is possible to meet the expressed wishes and desire of a majority of this House, and so greatly please them, but also the better please us on this side of the House.

Major C. LOWTHER: As matters stand now if we go into the Lobby we shall vote upon the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting. When he moved the Amendment he did so in terms, if I may say so with great deference, of great fairness, and he put before the Committee very carefully the reasons which prompted him to put forward the Amendment. He also, with equal fairness, promised to state, as he put it, the other side of the question. He was sincere in his desire to do so, but I would make this one incursion into the Debate to say that he did not do so quite so fairly. I take his figure—and I have no doubt it is perfectly correct—that 40s. to-day is only equivalent to 15s. in the pre-War time. He said what is no doubt
perfectly correct that even 40s. to-day is a miserable pittance for a working man, and that the working man has suffered a great deal from the aftermath of the War. We hear a good deal about the suffering of the working man from the aftermath of the War. May I, however, urge this point; that there are other classes which also have suffered, and are suffering, from the aftermath of the War. Where 40s. to the working man represents 15s. pre-War value it represents to everyone else exactly the same. I think the right hon. Gentleman admits that, and also that if this Amendment were to be carried the great burden would fall upon the State. After all, the State is the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has got to meet this burden. That 40s. only now represents really 15s. is not really the guiding factor in the whole thing. If we consulted the wishes of all here to do all we can to ameliorate the awful distress of unemployment, we would most freely do all we could, but all of us, whether workers or whatever class to which we may belong, are up against this solid fact, that as the right hon. Gentleman so clearly said, 40s. nowadays is worth 15s. in pre-War times.

Sir E. CARSON: The House, I am sure, listened to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Hayday) with great interest, but I would remind him that this is the kind of subject on which it is the easiest thing in the world to make sympathetic speeches. It is a class of case on which one—and certainly I could—make sympathetic and pathetic speeches. I think, however, the great thing we want to do is to try and do something practicable. May I also say that we ought not to raise false hopes amongst the people, or lead them to imagine that the purse of the State is bottomless. I speak sincerely when I say that I would be very glad if the whole community were even as well off as I am—and that perhaps is not saying much— and whatever the class, whether mental or bodily strength is necessary to keep on, there is nothing more pathetic than that the man who wishes work cannot get it. I certainly, if I saw the possibility of the Amendment working out, would support it unhesitatingly. But I know perfectly well—and I am sure, if I may say so with great respect, my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well too—that if this Amendment were carried in its present form the Bill
would be lost—at all events, it would be delayed. I am thinking of a great many people in my own constituency, and I want them to get the best terms that they can, and as quickly; and this latter is a matter of vital importance.
Having listened to a great deal of this Debate I must say I was surprised at the proposal made by my hon. Friend who sits opposite to me. He suggests that the balance from the unemployed insurance in hand would enable another 2s. to be paid. That is, the 18s. to be made 20s. For my own part I would take the risk about the reserve of which my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench speaks. In my view, the 2s. added to an allowance of 18s. a week makes a very great difference in a small household. If my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Clynes) would amend his Amendment by putting down 20s., I would vote for it, because you are not making an immediate addition to the rates in this way, but you are really showing what ought to be demonstrated, and that shows how successful you can make this insurance system when you have a reserve of this kind that you can call upon. I feel that if I voted for this Amendment in the end we should get nothing extra, and I ask my right hon. Friend to come down to practical politics at the moment, and let us get all we can. If we get the initial 2s. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have done a good afternoon's work. I do not believe the State or the Insurance Fund will he running any appreciable risk in making this grant. I have been long enough in this House to know that you very often lose something by opening your mouth too widely, and I am not prepared to vote for this Amendment.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I want to associate myself with those who have been advocating differentiation. I think it is lamentable that there should have been added a flat rate of 3s. to the girl who may be living at home and the man who has to support a family of perhaps five or six children, and that shows a great lack of discrimination. I am strongly of opinion that the head of the family should receive more than this 18s., and I would add to it even at the expense of the girl rather than they should not have it at all at the head of the family. I think there is no reason for that, and I believe the £5,000,000 which is intended to hold up as a reserve will provide an
ample margin to give to the head of the family the additional 2s. which has been advocated by so many hon. Members, without perhaps deducting anything else.

Mr. WATERSON: I listened very carefully to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dun-cairn (Sir E. Carson), more particularly when he made that reference of sympathy and practicality. As for the 20s. which has been mentioned, I am afraid that is not practical when we take a long view. What is the position? I know many of those with whom I have been in contact with for many years have been walking the streets for many months. In one case I know of there is a man who has six children, and he is compelled, with the little employment he gets, to have assistance from the Board of Guardians. If this man has an allowance of 20s., where does the advantage come in if the man has to go to the Board of Guardians to get another 15s.? Would it not be better for the State in the first place to grant the 40s. as proposed by this Amendment? I am speaking from the point of view of the children. The Ministry of Health has a department which is spending thousands of pounds every year upon medical research. This House does not in the least degree minimise the necessity for medical research, and why? Because it is in the interests of the health of the community. As a consequence, if that is essential, how much more essential is it that when that state of health has been secured we should take drastic action to defend that health in order to have an Al population.
We think the figures mentioned by the Minister of Labour are totally insufficient to meet the situation. We are also of opinion that the reserves should be drawn upon. With regard to the economies at the expense of the standard of life of the people, we trust that the Minister, who has always been fairly sympathetic, will see his way clear to grant the terms of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes) said this would upset the whole basis of the actuarial valuation. Those valuations could easily be gone into within the next month, and within a month this House would have an opportunity of discussing the question in the light of the new actuarial valuations according to the amount we are prepared to grant to-day.
I think that is somewhat a lame excuse to put up against the granting of this Amendment. Whilst I have always listened with sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals, I only desire to say to him that there are many trade unions that always make allowance for the children of these men who are out of work, and if it can be done in that case it can be easily done by the State in a case of this description. In the interests of the children, and those who cannot help themselves, I appeal to the House to grant all the assistance they can to maintain the strength of our nation and to build up a future generation that will be a credit to the statesmen of the age.

Mr. W. THORNE: I was hoping that some Minister would reply to the observations of my hon. Friend. When the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the Mover of this Amendment I interrupted and asked how long would it be before the fund was exhausted if this proposition were accepted. I think the reply was that that matter had not been gone into in detail. The thing is very-simple, because the Government must know the number of men and women out of employment to-day, and the amount which is being paid on the scale of 12s. and 15s per week. They must have calculated how much the extra cost will he to pay 18s. a week, and surely they are in a position to find out the extra amount of money it will cost. They know how much money they have at their command now, and there is the amount they will receive from the 11,000,000 of men and women who are insured, and they ought to be in a position to tell us what the position would be if this Amendment were accepted. Those are simple propositions which ought to be answered.
I am not very much concerned as to whether the fund will last long or short, because I happen to belong to one of the collective schools of Socialism, and. when the State insurance was introduced, I advocated a non-contributory scheme. I suggest that this extra 3s. ought to be paid by the State for the men and the women, and the extra contribution they are asking from the employer, the worker and the State at the beginning of July ought to pay more than the 3s. It is a well-known fact; that the members of the organisation which I represent are pay-
ing 2d. a week for 6s. We have 25,000 on our funds, and by a careful calculation made this afternoon, as one of the chief officials, I had to present it to them as to whether we were gaining or losing, and the result was that although WP asked for an extra 2d. as a contribution to enable us to pay 6s. to those who pay full contributions, we are in a position to pay this 6s. for 2d., whilst here the Government are asking an extra contribution from the men, women and employers and the State, I think it is 3¾d. for an extra 3s. Everybody knows that if the amount proposed were accepted, or even a lesser amount, you could pay out 20s. just as easily as 10s. You can pay 40s. just as easily as you can pay 50s., because it costs no more for administration. You can put down a figure of 40 just as easily as 18 from an administrative point of view. The Government, cannot say that it would cost anything more in that direction.
We are told that if we increase this extra benefit it is going to absorb the £15,000,000. I cannot see how it is going to cost that amount. I shall not be satisfied until I hear someone from the Treasury Bench tell us exactly what this extra 3s. is going to cost as well and the approximate amount that is coming in from the contribution. That is a simple proposition, and those questions ought to be answered before we accept the statement made that this proposal win cost another £15,000,000, keeping £5,000,000 in reserve. What do you want to keep that amount in reserve for? Why not pay it out, because it has been paid in? You have no right to keep that balance, and if you did your duty you ought to pay the expense of all the ex-soldiers out of the Exchequer. Many of them have not contributed to the fund at all. I do not say that we ought to cut the ex-soldier out, but during the time I have been in this House this Session everybody has been so sympathetic about the ex-soldier that in my humble judgment the State ought to bear that obligation and take that number from the Unemployment Fund, and if you did that then you could pay even more than 18s. I know it is quite hopeless, and we might as well talk to a brick wall. You have all made up your minds—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The Division Lobby will tell us that. The Government have even not agreed to the suggestion made
from all quarters of the House that the benefit should be increased from 18s. to 20s.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will you accept it?

Mr. W. THORNE: We will accept anything we can get. I think we are entitled to know before the Debate is closed whether the Government are prepared to accept the proposition from all quarters to raise the 18s. to 20s. So far they have declined to give any reply to that. They are sticking hard and fast to the 18s., and in so doing, they are taking up an impossible position. You cannot expect us to compromise in any shape or form while they indicate they are not prepared to offer more than 18s.

Mr. ALFRED LAW: It is a matter for congratulation there is such a small disparity between the amount proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and that on which many of us would like to see a compromise. We on this side are deeply sympathetic with the unemployed, and especially with the ex-soldiers. During the course of the Debate it has been suggested there is a special obligation on the nation to make provision for ex-soldiers, and I cannot help thinking it is a national obligation, as these men fought for their country. I also agree that temporary provision should be made for those who are unfortunately placed in a position of unemployment, which we all trust will only be temporary. I hope some compromise will be found. To my mind 18s. does not appear to be sufficient. I should certainly like to see it increased by 2s., if not more. I should also like to urge that it is the duty of the employers in each particular industry to meet the difficulty by some voluntary contribution. I support the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) that the benefit should be fixed at 20s., and if hon. Members opposite will agree to that compromise, I shall be happy to vote with them.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to raise the sum to 20s. In doing so, I do not believe he will be running the slightest risk, because the wave of depression in trade is, I feel sure, only temporary. I have never been a pessimist. Pessimism is no good to anybody. It
never won a war, and it never carried us through bad times. So far as Lancashire is concerned, I am hopeful that within three months we shall see trade begin to move, and in six months we shall be going at full time. Therefore, I do not believe the Labour Ministry will run the slightest danger in increasing the benefit to 20s. The right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) told us it was easy to make pathetic speeches on questions like this. I agree, but we must face facts. I have had a good deal to do with the unemployed question, and I know there are families who are actually starving. Can we afford to let these men starve?
I confess I feel that the benefit ought to be graded. I do not see why it should not be. The Labour Minister tells us that they have no figures to show what the result would be. But what are they in office for? Is it merely to run Labour Exchanges which have not proved of the slightest use to either employer or employed, but which have cost the country vast sums of money to very little effect? Compare the two cases. You pay 18s. a week to a single man. You pay the same sum to a man with a wife and four children. Take 6s. off for rent, and it leaves 12s. for food and clothes. How can a family of five or six people live on such a sum? Can anyone live on 2s. a week? The whole thing is absurd; it means starvation pure and simple. Personally, I would have had the greatest pleasure in voting for the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes). But what is the good of voting for it when one feels confident in his own mind that the money cannot be found? The Minister of Labour told us that employers and employed ought to make an arrangement between themselves for keeping their unemployed. I agree but the trade unions have been the obstacle in the way of that. In my own trade an attempt was made to introduce it within the last three years, but the trade union prevented it, and the suggestion was opposed by the hon. Member for one of the Glasgow Divisions, whose practice it is to introduce class hatred into these questions. I would ask the Minister of Labour this question. While we are getting such a scheme into operation, what are these men to do? We cannot allow them to starve. I think the right hon. Gentleman under any
circumstances should increase the benefit from 18s. to 20s., and if he does not agree to do that I am afraid it will put some of us in the awkward position of not being able to support the Government. Therefore I trust he will accede to a request which has come from all quarters of the House.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Like the last speaker, I am not a pessimist; but I fancy the Ministry of Labour are pessimists. Personally, I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the contribution asked for from the employer and employed, plus the contribution of the State, will enable the Ministry to pay a benefit of at least 25s. to married men and 20s. to single men. The actuarial statements in connection with health and unemployed insurance in the past have always under-estimated income and overestimated expenditure, and I suggest that if the actuary has based his calculations on 9 or 10 per cent, of unemployed he is a long way out, and if instead of 10 per cent, he calculated only on 7 per cent, there would be a far larger income and much less expenditure than he anticipates. I hope, therefore, before the Division is taken, the Government will make some declaration with regard to what it proposes to do. One of the hon. Members just now spoke of 12s. per week as being too much for an unemployed woman. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] I was at a conference in Manchester 18 days ago, which was waited upon by a deputation of unemployed women, and one young woman said, "I am 22 years of age, my 12s. per week unemployed benefit ceases this week. I have led a decent and respectable life up till now. When my benefit ceases what am I to do? I may for a few weeks pawn my clothes and the little bit of jewellery I have, but when all that is exhausted what am I to do?" There we have the moral side of the question which has been ignored altogether. I say that the 12s. plus the 3s. is only just sufficient to keep women and particularly young ones from falling into temptation, and I appeal to the Government to at any rate increase the benefit to 20s. for men and 18s. for women. I believe the fund will stand it. I do not think we are going to have a large num-
ber of unemployed persons for a very long period. I believe that by a better organisation of labour—and labour is badly organised in the workshop at the present time—a great improvement may be effected. The heads of industries might well devote their efforts to securing more work and reducing cost of production. Remembering what-has been said by the hon. Member for West Ham with regard to what it costs trade unions to pay a certain benefit, I suggest that the proposals of the Government will not bear comparison with the work of the trade unions. I do not know where the money goes in the Government's case, unless it goes in the payment of administrative officials. I hope the Government will compromise, and either now or before the Report stage agree to increase the benefit. They are acting too cautiously in this matter, and I agree with those who declare that grave discontent will arise unless the accumulated unemployment funds are made use of and people brought into a better state of mind than they are at the present time. Therefore I trust the Government have not said their last word in connection with this matter.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: Questions have formed a feature of several of the speeches which have been made, but they have not been addressed so much to me as to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would like to ask a question of the Chair, and also to address one to my right hon. Friend. Of course, we should have much preferred to have recorded our support of this. Amendment by voting for it in the Lobby, but I think I am voicing the feeling of those for whom I speak on this side of the Committee when I say that we do not desire merely the satisfaction of supporting our Amendment in the Lobby if that means preventing the Committee from increasing the figure from 18 to 20 shillings. I want to ask you, Sir, whether, if a Division were taken on the Amendment now before the Committee, that would preclude a discussion and a vote upon other Amendments proposing to raise the figure to 20s. I would also like to ask my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) to reply to the definite questions put to him as to whether he can see his way to raise the amount to 20 shillings.

The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the question put to me it is quite clear that if
the present Amendment is carried to a Division the Committee will decide whether or not 18s. is to stand part, and having decided that they cannot go back upon it. The question I shall have to put from the Chair, as I am obliged to do, is that the one word ("eighteen") proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause. The decision, therefore, would conclude that matter. A subsequent proposal could only be brought effectively before the Committee if the present Amendment were withdrawn.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps I may now answer the question put to me much earlier by the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division. I quite realise that although technically we are discussing the Labour party's proposal of 40s. for the head of a family, and the other provision made in the Amendment, we are, in effect, dealing with a very widespread proposal that the 18s. should be raised to 20s. I am bound to say that I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends quite realise how much this Bill does. First of all, it raises the existing benefit by 3s., from 15s. to 18s., but it does a great deal more than that. It takes an emergency period of 16 weeks after the coming into operation of the Act down to the end of October, and another 16 weeks without further contribution, making 32 weeks to the end of June, 1922. It says to the civilian, "If you can show 10 weeks' employment during the year 1920, if you are an insured person, in an insured trade, then you will be eligible for that." For a fit ex-service man, the period is 10 weeks during the whole of 1920, and I am proposing to amend the Bill to take care that there shall be no possibility of hardship, even then in a case where a young fellow, who was not in industry before he joined the colours, cannot possibly have 10 weeks' employment to his credit. I propose to give discretion to the local employment committee to waive this rule if need be. The Bill does more than this. It raises the 15s. to 18s. without increasing the contribution until 4th July, 1921.

Mr. W. THORNE: It is out of the man's own money, man.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Forgive me. He receives a benefit of 18s. in anticipation, from the passing of the Act, while the raising of the contribution is postponed
to the beginning of the new insurance year, 4th July, 1921. The Bill also substitutes a permanent 26 weeks' benefit, possible in one year, against the permanent 15 weeks at the present time. I do not complain that the Debate has ranged round the question of 18s. and 20s., but I ought to point out the other considerations involved, and they are very substantial. Coming to the immediate question, there is in the Unemployment Fund over £20,000,000, and we are quite entitled to deal with that, because it was the high state of employment during the War, and the £62,000,000 out-of-work donation paid since the close of hostilities to persons, many of whom would otherwise have come on the Fund for benefit, which have kept that Fund at £20,000,000. We say that if we raise the amount to 18s., with this special emergency period of 32 weeks, with the postponed contributions to the 4th July, 1921, and to the permanent 26 weeks in the year instead of 15, we shall bring the Fund down to £4,000,000 or £5;000,000; and we cannot take it below that.
To-day the percentage of unemployment amongst insured persons is 13, and the trade union percentage of unemployment is 7. There are 13 per cent, insured persons unemployed, casting out 1,750,000 persons who may be presumed to come under special schemes. The basis on which I have gone has been to estimate that during the whole of the period up to the end of June, 1922, there may be an average of 9½ per cent, insured persons unemployed, still casting out the 1,750,000 people who come in under the special schemes. As I said yesterday, we may hope to Heaven that unemployment will not be 9½ per cent, on the average, but I think I have made a perfectly safe calculation. On the basis of 9½ per cent., the benefits proposed in this Bill could be given, and about £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 left in the Fund. My hon. Friends say to me: "Take your courage in both hands, and raise the amount to 20s." This, curiously enough, would have the effect of practically wiping out the Fund. Let the Committee realise what it is doing. If unemployment is heavier than the average of 9½ per cent, or 10 per cent.—I must be frank with the Committee—and the amount is raised1 to 20s., we shall close the insurance year 1921–22—at the end of June, 1922—and
start the new one with a deficiency in the Fund. We have certain obligations to people who have paid into the Insurance Fund.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: You have better years ahead.

Mr. W. THORNE: Come to the unions, we will lend you some money.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend rather complained that he has not had paid back quite as readily as he ought to have had sums of money which are due to him. The position is that if the percentage of unemployment is, on the average, more than 9½, there will be a deficiency, and in any case, apart from unemployment altogether, there is an outstanding liability of £3,000,000, a capital charge—that is the valuation liability of the charge—involved in repaying to insured persons, who reach 60 years of age, the excess of their own contribution over benefits received, at compound interest. That is a liability which has in any case to be faced. Now the Committee fully understands where we are when it is proposed that we should take the risk. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded me, I have been dealing with the whole intervening period which is allowed here, up to the time when we are left with the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 balance on the basis of the 18s. benefit. If at that time, however, when we are starting the new year, 1922–23, unemployment is above 5 per cent, there will be a week to week liability beyond the income you will be receiving at that moment. If there is a higher percentage of unemployment than 9½ at that period, then there will be a deficiency which will have to be met. I hope no one will turn round here then, and tell me that I ought to be jumped on by the Anti-Waste party. Let us be quite clear about that. I have not heard a whisper of that sort of thing during this Debate.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The House would readily vote to my right hon. Friend any deficiency that might arise.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a most reassuring thing to hear. That is the position, but, after all, in consideration of the plea made in all quarters, beginning with the hon. Member for Newcastle last night, and continued to-day,
I am bound to say that if an opportunity offers, by the withdrawal of this Amendment, to take a vote on the question of 20s. as against 18s., I shall be very glad to move such an Amendment myself, or to get some other hon. Gentleman to move it.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and of your own announcement from the Chair, Mr. Whitley, as to the position in which we shall be placed, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) has this particular Amendment on the Paper, he should be allowed to move it.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
I formally move the Amendment which, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, meets the general view of all sections of the Committee. I am glad his well-known sympathies have come out on top, and that he is prepared to take the risk which the whole of the Committee has asked him to take. There is this satisfaction in feeling that this settlement will be an agreed one, showing the broad sympathy of all sections of the Committee.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Before the Question is put, I should like to protest against the increase of this allowance. I would go to any length to give an adequate allowance to those people who are suffering at the present time, but I am satisfied that this will only aggravate the great disease you are seeking to cure. We are concerned at the present time in getting the wheels of industry going. You speak of solving the problem and reducing unemployment by improving industrial organisation, but what is the use of improving industrial organisation if you have nothing for that industrial organisation to work on? How are you going to get work into your workshops if you increase the tendency to unemployment by attracting on to the streets the younger element especially, who are, many of them, perfectly satisfied with 18s. a week. I desire to enter a vigorous protest, in the interests of the working men
of this country, whom I know well and thoroughly understand, against increasing this allowance, and so keeping men out of work and constantly forcing them on to unemployment benefit. Having made that protest, I will leave the matter until a more appropriate occasion when I can fully explain my views.

Major C. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman said quite fairly that none of those whom he called the "anti-waste party" had raised their voice against his proposals. My voice was raised on a previous occasion to show that, if any burden were cast upon the State, it would fall upon the taxpayer, and the same observation applies now. The value of money has not increased because this dole has been increased, and if there is a burden to be borne, be it weekly or annually, or whatever it may be, it will fall on the taxpayer. The taxpayer, as it is, has a sufficiently heavy burden to bear, and the increase which the Government proposed in their original Bill was the utmost that they were entitled to propose. I therefore desire to associate myself with the hon. Member who has just eat down.

Sir F. BANBURY: I desire also to support the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). Those who have advocated this increase have really done a very bad service to the working men, and it is a striking commentary upon the de sire for economy which has been spoken of in various quarters. Whenever there is anything which will increase expenditure but which may be popular, I am sorry to say that a very considerable number of Members of the House of Commons throw aside their desire for economy in order to be on the popular side. Let us consider what the real position is. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour says that he has budgeted for 9½ per cent, of men out of employment. One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this was an abnormal situation, but I am sorry to say that I do not think it is an abnormal situation. I think it is going to be worse, and that the increase of these doles will only lead to people saying that they will not take any less wages, which is the only thing that will bring this country back to its proper prosperity. Do not let us make any mistake. The only way is to increase production, and the only way to increase
production is to ensure that the cost of producing an article is such that the article when produced can be sold. The only result of preventing the reduction of wages, as it will be prevented if this increase is given, will be to prevent the increase of production, and if there is no increase in production there will not be any wages to pay at all. There will be no Fund. I have had experience of these funds. The Railway Superannuation Fund has been bankrupt for a long time because people have always gone on the assumption that the worst was not going to take place, and that something would come forward which would put it right. As surely as I am standing here, the right hon. Gentleman's prognostication of 9½ per cent, of unemployment over the whole period will be wrong, and the result will be that the Fund will be bankrupt. Moreover, as in Ireland and as in India, the increasing of the allowance from 18s. to 20s. will not be received with gratitude, but will be used as a jumping ground for further increases. We have only to look at the first Amendment, which asked, not for 20s., but 40s. The moment that the right hon. Gentleman has shown, as he has done, his squeezability, he will be further squeezed, with the result that unemployment will be encouraged and the fund will become bankrupt. As it was said that this proposal meets with the approval of all Members of the House, I congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) on having taken the unpopular view, in which I feel bound to support him.

Mr. DEVLIN: It seems to me extraordinary that the right hon. Baronet should work himself into such a high state of excitement on this question. The difference between the right hon. Baronet and myself is that he gets hysterically excited and indignant on the side of bad policies, white I get excited on the side of good policies. I would venture to point out to him that, although he may now be regarded as a chartered Parliamentary economist, it is strange that' his economic mentality is always attracted upon the side of saving money when social reforms are to be carried out. There will be many opportunities for the right hon. Baronet to exercise his economic conscience on the Estimates that are coming up for consideration. He will have many opportunities of moving reductions. He
will find, if he thoroughly analyses and examines, as, no doubt, he will, the Estimates presented, many chances for the indulgence of his passionate desire for the reduction of public charges. I trust that he will show next week, when large sums of money will be asked for by the Government, especially in connection with Ireland, some of that intensity which he has just displayed. I rarely congratulate the Government in this House, but I want to congratulate the Minister now, because I think he has done the right thing in acceding to the request made from the Labour benches.

Dr. MACNAMARA: From all quarters.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am very glad. It is highly to the credit of the House that there is in all quarters the desire to make more adequate—I think 18s. was absolutely inadequate—the concession which has been made, or rather, I would say, the attempt to relieve in some small degree the unemployment which exists in these islands, and for which the people are neither directly nor indirectly responsible. As I mentioned last night, at the time when the previous Unemployment Insurance Bill was proposed, and the present leader of the Labour party suggested that the allowance should be increased from 15s. to £l a week, I strongly supported him. I thought that it should have been £l then, and I am glad that it will be so now. Therefore, I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Government on their good sense in accepting the suggestion made, which has been supported, as the right hon. Gentleman says, in all parts of the House. I understand that I should not now be in order in raising a point that is of vital interest to those whom I represent, namely, the vast body of men, mostly labourers, who, through no fault of their own, were unemployed during the period of the moulders' strike in Belfast. I desired mainly to ask for information from the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps I can do so on a subsequent occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the Committee that, as we have taken up a very long time on the first Amendment, the Committee might now be ready to come to a decision?

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and fifteen shillings respectively."
This, as hon. Members will observe, would equalise the benefit to men and to women. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's nod means that he is going to accept it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will give very briefly the reasons why I hope the Committee will support the Amendment. An unemployed woman needs food and shelter as much as an unemployed man, and there is another reason which I will only mention, namely, that the woman is open to temptations to which the man is not. The unemployed women are in many cases the younger women, the mothers of the future, and we have every right to look after them as much as we do the unemployed men. If there is anything in the equality of sexes, I think the hon. Members who agree with equality of treatment for the sexes should support me in this Amendment. I do not want to enter at length into the many arguments that could be put forward in its favour, but I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give it his sympathetic consideration. In many cases the condition of the unemployed woman is very pitiable. She cannot shift from one employment to another so easily as a man can, and in many cases her health goes more quickly than a man's. Hon. Members who think that unemployed women have all got homes to go to make a very great mistake; the majority of these women who are unemployed to-day are dependent solely on their own earnings. They are the weaker vessels in the body politic, and I think it is scandalous that their allowance should be loft at 15s. We have just raised the man's allowance to 20s. What is the position of the woman? Is her allowance to remain at 15s., or is she to get an extra 2s.? If the right hon. Gentleman proposes, in a sub sequent Amendment, to raise the woman's allowance to 17s.—

Dr. MACNAMARA: indicated dissent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then there is all the more reason why he should accept my Amendment, making the benefits equal. You have just given the man an extra 2s., making his allow-
ance 20s., and the woman's allowance is left at 15s. The inequality, therefore, is all the grosser and more striking, and I think the hon. Members who are never tired of talking about respect for the working women of this country, and the part that they played in the perilous times we have just gone through, might support me in this Amendment, which I intend to press.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I desire to support this Amendment. I have a similar Amendment on the Paper myself, but this covers the round covered by my Amendment. This question of insurance is not against personal or individual risk; the risk is a trade matter, and therefore, surely, there is no reason for this differentiation. No doubt, the reason why, in the first instance, the difference was made was that in the National Insurance Act of 1911 both health insurance and unemployment insurance were embodied and, because the differentiation was made in the case of health insurance, I presume the same differentiation was made in the case of unemployment insurance. But when you are dealing with health you are guarding against a purely personal risk and a personal liability, and it may be argued perfectly justifiably—possibly facts and figures will support the view—that there is a greater margin of risk with regard to sickness when you are dealing with women as compared with men. Whether that is so or not, I would submit that when you are dealing with unemployment the risk against which you are insuring is purely a trade risk and is not an individual risk, and therefore there is no reason in logic why you should have a different rate for a woman who is employed from that for a man who is employed, because the liability to unemployment is not in any way affected by the question of sex, but is affected entirely by outside causes, those of commerce and of industry, and surely it is not sensible to suggest for a moment that because a mill employs a large number of women instead of employing a number of men the risk of unemployment is going to be less because women are employed than because men are employed, and surely you ought to have one fund for this risk.
Why should you have two separate funds on the question of unemployment? It is one common risk and surely there
ought to be one common fund as a protection against the risk of unemployment. Consequently I submit that it is altogether a false analogy to compare a health insurance risk with the industrial risk of trade unemployment. It is not a question of the principle of equalisation of wages or of pay because the amount that is granted cannot in any sense be considered as an equivalent to a wage grant. It is but a meagre grant towards subsistence, level, and I do not suppose my right hon. Friend himself would consider for a moment that 15s. was in any way an adequate amount to keep either a single woman or a woman with a family. The woman worker who has her family to keep, a widow or whatever it may be with dependants, is in a much worse position even than a man and there is no reason on earth why this differentiation should be made. The right hon. Gentleman has resisted the plea of differentiation as between single and married men and I appeal to him to be consistent and also to resist the differentiation between the woman and the man in relation to sex. I again submit that it is entirely a trade risk and not an individual risk and therefore in logic there is no reason on earth why you should differentiate.

Mr. T. SHAW: May I, without repeating arguments which have been urged, add a word or two dealing with a particular trade which is so circumstanced that differentiation between women and men is always bitterly resented. There are at least 200,000 women in Yorkshire and Lancashire working side by side with men at piece rates, earning the same wages under the same conditions in the same way. I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to continue the practice of separating these women from the men in the matter of insurance under the Unemployment Act. We have felt it to be a grievance, and we think the grievance ought to be removed, and that women ought to be put on equal terms with men. There is just one argument, and only one, that has been used previously which I will refer to. It may be that there is not a very large percentage of women who actually maintain a home, but I know there is a very large number of cases indeed in Lancashire in which the woman is the wage-earner and the keeper of her children. In those cases 15s. is so miserably inadequate that I do not think any argument is needed.
The women ought to pay the same and receive the same as men. Differentiation in at least one big trade is a bad thing. The conditions are equal, and they ought to be equal under the Insurance Act, on the ground that in a very large number of cases indeed it means a very serious hardship. I appeal to the Minister to remove the disability and to let women enter on equal terms with men into the Insurance Act, whatever the benefits may be, and whatever the contributions may be fixed at.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We are working in an atmosphere of friendly compromise, if not actual agreement, and while my right hon. Friend, while the Amendment was being moved, returned a very emphatic negative to the proposal as a whole, I am not without hope that some remnant of the same spirit which induced him to meet the general feeling of the Committee on the last Amendment may still be loft over for this articular question. It seems perfectly logical, having raised the allowance for a man from 18s. to 20s., that something must be done in the case of the woman. The logical thing, of course, is to give the extra 2s. There must be some ground of agreement or compromise between leaving things as they are and refusing the request made by the Mover of the Amendment. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might shorten the discussion by indicating at once how far he is prepared to go, because I feel pretty sure he cannot resist not only the logic of the situation, but his own sympathy with and understanding of this specially difficult part of the problem.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot entertain for a moment the proposition to recast the whole of the scheme of the Bill, its finance, benefit, contributions and all the rest of it, on the basis of equal benefit for both men and women. That was fought out upstairs last year, but it is manifest to anyone, particularly now that the benefits are to be raised, that to equalise them would really mean that I should have to prepare a new Bill, and the matter is very urgent. But having raised the men's benefit to £l, it will be necessary, and it will, of course, naturally be a logical part of my proposal, to readjust at any rate the relationship, so that they shall remain the same as between the men and the women. At pre-
sent the men get 15s. and the women get 12s. I have now raised the men to 20s., and it will be necessary, therefore, to restore the proportion, and four-fifths of 20s. is 16s. Therefore I hope the House will agree to that without further discussion, because it is as much as I can possibly do to restore the relationship, and the women's benefit will therefore become 16s. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment and move it in that form I shall be personally obliged.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I realise that that is the best we can get, and I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "fifteen" ["fifteen shillings respectively"] and insert instead thereof the word "sixteen."—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, after the word "respectively" ["and fifteen shillings respectively"], to insert the words "and two shillings and sixpence for each child under the age of sixteen years."
I do not know if my right hon. Friend can hold out any hopes. If he is going to accept the Amendment, it might be necessary, to make it clear, to put in the words "dependent on an unemployed person," but I do not think that is necessary from the advice I have taken. This is a very modest allowance. It is not what I should have been inclined to suggest if I had a free hand at all. I fully support the views of my hon. Friends of the Labour party that it should be 5s. for each child or dependant, because I think children are the last who ought to suffer. The treatment of children is the acid test of the civilisation of a people. Whereas we make no special allowance for the child of an unemployed civilian in this country, although we do for the soldier—and what difference there can be between the soldier's child and the civilian's I do not know; it is hot the child's fault—in much abused Russia, whatever we may thing about blood letting in that country and economic experiments, it is admitted by all observers who are in a position to speak that the first of foodstuffs, milk and medicines go to the children Here we are in this
country with children suffering most severely on account of the present trade depression. It is a tremendously shortsighted policy. It means that we are stunting the growth and development of the citizens of to-morrow, and when the Prime Minister talks about an A1 nation being necessary for an A1 empire I should have thought he might have considered the plight of the child of the unemployed civilian to-day. Even if it means bankrupting the fund I think the House would willingly grant the Ministry money for this matter. If the Government would come to the House and explain the condition of the children and ask the House to vote the extra money to do what it is necessary to do for them, probably the cost in a year would only be that of a couple of super-Dreadnoughts, and I suppose we shall embark on a building programme unless the House recovers its sanity very shortly. At that price we could supply this little extra alleviation which would make all the difference in the next generation. Although I am sorry the Minister of Labour has been forced by unsympathetic colleagues to harden his heart, I am not without hope that the House will support us in this thoroughly humane and, I consider, civilised arrangement of a subsistence allowance for unemployed children.

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a little ungracious to resist an appeal made on behalf of children. I share my hon. and gallant Friend's sensibility in respect to these little creatures, but, after all, this is an insurance based upon actuarial calculations. The concessions which I have made so far, have been made with due regard to taking risks, if you like, more than I have proposed to take, but they have been made with regard to what the fund will bear. You cannot at this juncture on a claim so urgent as this, make a proposal of the kind now put forward, in connection with which there are no actuarial calculations. I have not the faintest idea to what sort of charge I should be committed. What I do know is, that we have gone not only to the very limits of the possible resources of the fund, but that we shall wipe it out by the concessions which we have already made. I must appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend not to press this Amendment, but to rest satisfied with what has already been accomplished.

Mr. THOMAS: One can only regret that the House is not full to consider an Amendment of this kind. From all sides of the House Members have said in substance: "Our complaint against the present method of insurance is because no consideration is given to family responsibility." One Member said: "Why should we give a dole to the domestic servant, when we know from experience that they will not look for work." Another Member said: "Why cannot this House realise the difference between the young, single man, and the man with seven or eight children." The Amendment that we are now considering gives the House the opportunity of differentiating. We have decided that £l should be the recognised sum for men. No hon. Member will pretend for a moment that £l to-day is too much for man and wife, but in the case of a man with two, three, four, five, or six children, the position must appeal to Members in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this is an Insurance Bill. What is the meaning of an Insurance Bill?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is based on actuarial calculations.

Mr. THOMAS: Let us consider what an Insurance Bill means. I refuse to believe that the definition of insurance is purely a calculation of pounds, shillings and pence. It is insurance against unemployment, against under-feeding, and against starvation. That is the definition of insurance just as much as the mathematical calculation, and we are entitled to say that the first consideration in such circumstances are the children. We all appreciate the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, and we appreciate the manner in which he endeavoured to meet the last Amendment; but I do urge upon him now to realise that here is an opportunity of saying that we ought to differentiate in regard to family responsibility, and, so far as this House is concerned, the first consideration should be the children.

Mr. BRIANT: It is quite obvious that the object of insurance is to prevent persons during a state of unemployment from being in a state of destitution. If you apply that test to this question, £l a week does not keep a family from destitution, or anything like it. It will not keep one man from destitution, much
less a man with a wife and family, and I want the Committee to remember, what many speakers have forgotten, that it is a complete illusion to imagine that because the State does not provide enough for maintenance the balance necessary falls down like manna from heaven. If people are not to starve the money must come from somewhere. The nation one way or another has to pay for unemployment, and the present method is wrong. I can speak from practical experience of a Board of Guardians which is paying £500 a week for the relief of unemployment. That means that the burden has to fall upon the backs of ratepayers in an industrial area already overburdened with rates. That should be a charge on the community as a whole, and not upon a particular borough which is already overburdened with charges. If you are going to recognise the State's liability or responsibility towards the children, the only safe way to do it is to do it directly by the State giving a definite amount per head. Anyone who has had practical experience as I have knows that there are only three methods of getting assistance. One is from the Unemployment Funds, the other from the board of guardians, and the other from various charitable funds. The effect is disastrous. You have overlapping, and you have a man or a woman receiving money from different funds. It would be much better for the State to take the responsibility, and deal with the whole question. The allowance should depend upon the responsibilities of the man. That is the only sound system by which you can give an unemployment grant. I know the financial difficulties, but some time or other we shall have to face these facts. In giving a certain amount irrespective of the responsibilities of a man, we are not dealing with the question, but we are simply pushing the responsibility on to the boards of guardians, or we are taking money out of the pockets of the charitable. Both the latter methods are undesirable. We had better boldly face the facts, and recognise the unemployed as a charge upon the general community, and we had better add the logical conclusion by allowing so much per child.

Mr. R. GRAHAM: Most hon. Members will recognise that this Amendment is of greater importance than those which the
Minister has already conceded. The effect of this Amendment would do more to prevent or to alleviate suffering incurred by unemployment than will the increase in the rate payable to men and women. In the Debate yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary expressed the opinion that differential benefits for flat rate contribution would fail to receive the approval of the workers of this country. The hon. Gentleman may remember that I disagreed with the conclusion he expressed. I am now able to give him one clear example and one partial example of the successful application of that principle. The partial example is the provision by the Cotton Control Board of allowances for the children of unemployed persons. It is quite true that the cotton workers have not individually contributed to the fund from which the benefits to the workers and the allowances for children are paid, but the fact that I desire to emphasise is that there is no disapproval whatever of the payment of extra allowances to the parents and guardians of children. The complete example which I desire to offer is that of the miners. I am told by the miners' representatives in this House that all the members of their association who are over the specified age, which I believe is 16 years, contribute the same weekly sum and that in the event of unemployment caused by strikes, lock-outs, or depression in trade, every member over that age receives the same benefit, but an additional benefit of 2s. for each child is paid to the parent or guardian of the child. These I consider to be two examples of the successful application of that principle, to which no objection is taken by those who are subject to it. I should like to appeal to the Minister to be less concerned about the actuarial correctness of his Bill than about the purposes which the Bill should serve. It does seem to me to be very curious that so much emphasis should be put by the Minister upon that factor in his proposal, having regard to the extraordinary suffering which has been mentioned by almost every speaker. Without unduly emphasising that, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have regard not only to the credit which he may obtain from this Bill, but the credit which the Government may obtain as well as those Members who have contributed to the discussion as a result of
the adoption of a more generous scheme, with less consideration for the factor of actuarial correctness, which makes no appeal to the unemployed workman or workwoman.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HAYDAY: I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to avail him self of this opportunity to differentiate. One pound per week for males and 16s. for females has been granted, and there will be payments for youths and young persons between the ages of 16 and 18. There is, however, a very important gap for which no provision has been made, and I am sure that hon. Members need not be appealed to in vain on this point. Any effort that may be necessary ought to be made to fill the gap in the programme. One only needs to be in a working-class district to see day by day the difference in the appearance of the children on their way to school. You can see the lessening of the joviality or the happy human appearance of the children now as compared even with a month ago, and it is particularly hard where the head of the family is a widow who is in receipt of unemployment pay and who has dependents between the ages of one and 16. It ought to be the case that the head of the family, whether it be a father with a wife and children, or a widow responsible for the maintenance and bringing up of her children, should receive the same provision. I appealed yesterday to the Minister of Labour to include in the unemployment insurance young persons between the ages of 14 and 16. Evidently that cannot at the moment be done, but when you get a young person between 14 and 16 thrown out of employment, with no avenue of income, that in itself is a very heavy drag and cannot in any sense be met by the extra 2s. that has been conceded in the case of the adult male person. It may be perfectly true that children of school age may have some sustenance during the periods of their school attendance, but you have children from the time of their birth up to five years of age before they qualify for school attendance, and from 14 up to 16 when positively no avenue is open to them for sustenance. It ought not to be necessary to make this appeal any more emphatic than it has been already made. Dr. Saleeby made an exhaustive inquiry into the cost of rearing certain children, and in his opinion it cannot be done, if we are to
provide the proper nutritious food which a child ought to have an opportunity of assimilating, under from 25s. to 30s. a week. Every Member who has spoken in Committee to-day has spoken of the desirability of differentiating between the head of the household and the younger person. Here is the opportunity for making provision for that gap, which is the most deadly and threatening gap in the whole of our social system, and I think we ought at all events to give what the Amendment is asking, namely, 2s. 6d. extra for each dependant child below the age of 16.

Mr. FRANCE: I have already spoken this afternoon on this subject of differentiation, and it is one on which I feel very strongly. I do not very often agree with the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but I agree entirely with the motive which he has in putting forward this Amendment. But I feel at this stage that it is really important that this Bill should pass into law as quickly as possible. As the Government have considered the point which the House pressed upon them, and thereby have practically seen pass from their purview the funds within the scope of the Bill, I honestly cannot see that at this moment and in this Bill this Amendment can be carried with advantage without damaging and injuring the Bill as a whole. But I think the value of the discussion is very great, and I sincerely hope the Government will consider the point that there should be provided either a special grant for the purpose of helping the head of a house with a family, or that there should be added to the scheme some provision of insurance for children at a lower rate of payment, and that the Government will not lose sight of the fact that throughout the House as a whole there is an urgent desire that those who have families should not be unduly strained in times like the present. While holding that view very strongly, I feel that under this scheme it is almost impossible to ask, when there is no money left, that a further payment should be made in respect of children. I have only risen to emphasise that this is a matter that requires very earnest consideration.

Commander BELLAIRS: I agree with much that has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. France), but, after all, it is a very wise provision of Parliament
that we should not be able to increase the liabilities on the Treasury by any Amendment in a Bill. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member would simply smash the Bill by the charges which it would involve. If there is going to be any payment in respect of children at all, 2s. 6d. is quite inadequate. What is the effect of any proposal like this? It has this effect on the public mind: It creates an impression that the thing is being provided for by the Government, and those private channels which assist children in time of scarcity will be dried up. That would be very disastrous, and I hope the Government will resist these proposals. There is no guarantee whatever under this proposal that the money would be devoted to the children. It would be in the great majority of cases, but the Government are bound to see that it is used for the purpose which it is intended for in all cases and the machinery must be organised. The proper channels into which such money should go would be, I think, the welfare centres and the education centres, which would see that the children are properly fed, and so forth.

Mr. FRANCE: There was no guarantee that the money paid during the War to wives with dependents would be spent on the children, but the State did entrust them with money for that purpose, and there is no ground for suggesting it was not properly applied.

Commander BELLAIRS: The circumstances of the War were very special. This is an Unemployment Bill. Insurance is given for men and women unemployed, and it is not intended in this Bill to provide any money except for unemployment. The provision for children is a separate1 thing altogether. If the Government wanted to come forward later to assist the children they would see that the children got it direct, and those who are concerned with the children, such as welfare centres and education centres, would be the best qualified to render assistance to the children.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I want to make my appeal to the Minister to concede this Amendment. The hon. Member who has just sat down pointed out that if the Government would only agree to this Amendment it would smash the Bill. I
think it is better to smash the Bill than to smash the lives of little children in this country, because that is what is being done to-day. Last Sunday night I was in my own constituency. The distress prevailing there is very great. They were holding a concert in order to relieve the distress. There was a doctor present at the meeting, and I do not believe anybody can express what is taking place among the poor of the country better than the medical men. This is what Dr. Graham Thomas said:
There were children starving that night in Pontypool. Women came to him, and he was pointing out to them that it was not medicine they wanted, but bread.
What does that mean? It means this, that if you are going to give the head of a family with no children £1 a week, and the head of a family with four or five children the same amount, there are six who will receive a part of the sovereign in one home, whereas the sovereign will be divided between two in the other, and we know that the parents of children are always prepared to make sacrifices in order to see that their children are fed. The heads of families in which there are children, therefore, are going to suffer far more than the heads of families in which there are no children. Another point I should like to bring before the attention of the Minister is this. There is the greatest drain there has ever been known in my time upon the funds of the trade unions throughout the country to-day. I will take my own society as an illustration. We to-day have paid out during the last quarter £110,000 to our unemployed members. We have an extra staff in the office in order to deal with this question, because when we have normal employment we only require a certain staff. Our funds are all pooled. We pay accident benefit, funeral benefit, unemployed benefit, and also superannuation benefit, and my Executive have come to this conclusion, that that pool shall all be paid out in order to meet the distress among the men, women, and children of our members. If a trade union is doing that, surely the Government that we consider ought to be a model employer ought to be prepared to stretch the length of accepting this Amendment? Seeing the distress that has prevailed and the struggle that is taking place among those children, I appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment.
In conclusion I would like to point out this, that yesterday in our Labour Conference in London, the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) appealed to what I may call the level-headed men of the trade union movement to adopt constitutional methods; but when they were appealing, they were appealing to people probably with full stomachs. If they had gone out to the streets to meet the unemployed marching with their bands and their banners in different parts of London and appealed to them, it would have been a different matter altogether, because you can reason with a man with a full stomach, but you cannot reason with a man with an empty stomach. You seem to be very pessimistic; you seem to think that this depression of trade is going to last until 1922. I am more optimistic. I think things will improve as we go along soon, and that this is the great emergency. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment. If not, I will go into the Lobby with the hon. Member in support of it.

Major ENTWISTLE: I support the Amendment. I was very surprised to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) alleging as one of the reasons against giving this allowance that you could not trust the parents to use it for the benefit of the child. That is a very unworthy aspersion in any case, and it is not as if there was no other precedent for it. We have one in the case of our War pensions. If a man in the Army has any children there is now under the pensions scheme an allowance for the wife. There was not until the report of the Select Committee, but there always was an allowance for children, and that allowance has been increased to 10s. for the first child and 7s. 6d. for the second. Here we have a very moderate proposal of 2s. 6d. per child. If you can trust the payment of a pension of 10s. a week on behalf of a child, à fortiori you ought to trust a parent to disburse this 2s. 6d. on behalf of a child. Another reason advanced against this Amendment is that the amount is totally inadequate, and, if granted, might dry up the springs of private charity. That is a most extraordinary argument. If it is inadequate, as it is, that will in no way stop the necessity for further assistance from
charitable or other sources, and the fact that a child will have 2s. 6d. from the State will only mean that that child will be that much better off.
Then there was a further argument that this was dealing with unemployment and not with children, and the children should be dealt with by welfare societies or some other means. The whole object of this payment to the unemployed is really to save them from absolute need. It is not a maintenance allowance. It is not sufficient to keep them in any decent standard of life, but only to keep them from starvation. It is the barn minimum that the State can give, for if the man has children this minimum falls lamentably short even of what is barely necessary to keep the wolf from the door. I am in favour of differential treatment for married people, and those with responsibility, but apart from that question I cannot see any difficulty in making this allowance to the child. We have the precedent of the pensions to soldiers and sailors and their dependants. I do not think that there ought to be any question of the difference in the contribution to be made by a person who has children. I submit with every confidence that the man who has no children would not object to pay no less a contribution than the man who was fortunate enough to have done his duty to the State by having a family. This Amendment will not smash the Bill. If the finance of it needs any amendment it is a very simple process to increase the rate of contribution which the Government could do. The proposition is so reasonable and moderate that it should commend itself to every section of the House.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir M. Barlow): One's natural sympathies go with those who urge the point of view expressed in this Amendment, but, putting it very shortly and very directly, this is an Amendment which the Government are not prepared to accept for various reasons. First, there is the great difficulty about setting up machinery, and it would mean not only confusion but delay in securing the benefits of the Bill which the House would be wise to put through as promptly as possible. But if delay is preferred, there again I would point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have pressed the point that it is reasonable there should be a payment for
children that the instances whch they have given have been instances where there is no contribution. There was one case, that of the miners. The mere fact that that was an exception showed the rarity of the cases where there was a contribution, and a differentiation between married and single men. In the case of the Cotton Control Board you get the whole of the money contributed by an outside authority. You have not yet got the principle established in the community that you can pay different benefits where there is a flat rate contribution. One right hon. Gentleman suggested that it is a matter for consideration. I think that the Debate has been very useful in ventilating the question as to whether something cannot be done in the matter of children's allowances. I can assure the House that there must be other Amend-

ments to the Insurance Act as time goes on, and we will give the matter every consideration. But with that assurance I ask the House to accept the fact that the Government cannot accept the Amendment and to let us get on.

Mr. R. GRAHAM: Are we to understand that the principle is acceptable to the Government so that we shall have no further doubt about the matter?

Sir M. BARLOW: We will put ourselves in touch with all the interests concerned. The only instance given was the miners. Generally speaking there is no differentiation, but we will take all steps we can to collect the feeling on the subject.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 99.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[8.24 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-la-Spring)


Sreese, Major Charles E.
Hallas, Eldred
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Davies A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Johnstone, Joseph
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John J.
Williams, Aneurln (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, w. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Glanville, Harold James
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Major Barnes.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Redmond, Captain William Archer



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lambert. Rt. Hon. George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Evans, Ernest
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lorden, John William


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lynn, R. J.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Forrest, Walter
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gange, E. Stanley
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gardiner, James
Macquisten, F. A.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mason, Robert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, William Lane


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Moles, Thomas


Bigland, Alfred
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Molson, Major John Eisdale


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Neal, Arthur


Blair, sir Reginald
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Nield, Sir Herbert


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Borwick, Major G. o.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Britton, G. B.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bruton, sir James
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Purchase, H. G.


Campbell, J. D. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ramsden, G. T.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rankin, Captain James S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Renwick, George


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Sugden, W. H.
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Winterton, Major Earl



Waddington, R.
Wise, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waring, Major Walter
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Contributions.)

(1) From on and after the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the contributions payable under the principal Act in respect of employed persons by those persons and their employers shall be at the rates set out in the First Schedule to this Act instead of at the rates specified in Part I of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, and the contribution to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament shall, instead of being a contribution at the rates specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act, be at a rate equal to one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of the employed person by himself and his employer, and Sub-sections(3) and (7) of Section five of the principal Act shall have effect accordingly.
(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of unemployment benefit to which any person is entitled at any time after the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, no account shall be taken of any benefit which may have been received by that person at any time in respect of the period between the commencement of the principal Act and before the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and there shall be deemed to have been paid previously to that date in the case of every person who is an insured contributor at that date, twenty-five contributions in addition to the contributions actually paid in respect of him:
Provided that any additional contributions credited under the foregoing provision shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether any person satisfies the first statutory condition, or for the purposes of Section twenty-five of the principal Act, which provides for the repayment in certain cases of part of the contributions paid by employed persons.
(3) If at any time while the contributions payable by employers and employed persons under the principal Act are payable at the rates fixed by this Act it appears to the Minister that the rates of those contributions are excessive, he may with the consent of the Treasury by regulations under that Act reduce those rates by not more than two-pence, but any regulations made under this Sub-section shall not reduce the rates unequally as between employers and employed persons.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "First" ["specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal"] and to insert instead thereof the word "Third."

This is purely a drafting Amendment, to correct a printer's error.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "twopence" to insert the words "or increase the benefits payable."
The purpose of this Sub-section is to give the Minister power, if he desires later, to decrease the amount of contributions payable by the employer and the employed. The suggestion is that the actuaries in drawing up the scale have made more provision than was necessary for the benefits payable, and that if that happy state of things occurred, the Minister has power to reduce the contributions payable under the Act. The Amendment gives the alternative power to increase the benefits which might be paid owing to the funds being more than the actuaries have anticipated. Once you have employers and employed in the habit of paying a certain sum it would be foolish to get them out of that habit and to reduce the benefits. The Minister of Labour has met the House on so many points that I feel sure he will agree to this change, which does not involve any extra cost to the Treasury or anyone else.

Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member will look at the last paragraph in the Second Schedule of the Bill, he will see that what he asks is already provided in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments as to conditions for receipt of benefit.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every person who has been engaged at any time in each of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in any employment which made him, or which would, if the principal Act had been in force throughout the year nineteen hundred and twenty, have made him, an employed person within the meaning of that Act and who satisfies the other conditions prescribed by this Section shall, notwithstanding that the first statutory condi-
1263
tion may not have been fulfilled in his case and notwithstanding Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act, but subject to the other provisions of the said Act as amended by this Act, be entitled to receive in each of the special periods hereinafter in this Act mentioned unemployment benefit for periods not exceeding in the aggregate in each of those periods sixteen weeks, and for the purpose of qualifying any person to receive benefit up to the aggregate amounts aforesaid within each of the special periods, but for no other purpose, there shall be treated as having been paid in respect of him such number of contributions as are sufficient to qualify him as aforesaid.
(2) In the application of the preceding Sub-section to persons formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of this Act a period of not less than ten separate calendar weeks shall be substituted for a period of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks, and where any person who has been engaged in war service is a disabled person within the meaning of this Act he shall, if he satisfies the local employment committee that his failure to be employed for the periods required by this Section was due to his disablement to be treated for the purpose of this Section as though he had been engaged for the period aforesaid in such employment as aforesaid, although he has not in fact been so engaged.
(3) No person should be entitled to benefit under this Section unless he proves that he is——

(a) Normally in employment;
(b) Genuinely seeking whole-time employment but unable to obtain such employment.

If any question arises as to whether any person satisfies the foregoing requirements, the question shall be decided by the Minister, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer any such question to the local employment committee for their recommendation.
Where a question is referred to a local employment committee under the foregoing provision, the committee may make it the condition of their recommendation that the case of the claimant shall be reconsidered by the committee on the expiration of any specified period, or that the maximum aggregate period during which the claimant may receive benefit shall be reduced to period less than the maximum period allowed by this Act.
Local employment committees in the exercise of their powers under this Subsection shall have regard to such directions as the Minister may proscribe for their guidance.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that no person who holds, or has at any time held, a certificate of exemption under Section three of the principal Act shall be entitled to benefit under this Section.
Under Section 3 of the principal Act, exemption is granted to certain persons on the ground that insurance against unemployment is unnecessary. Therefore, to grant benefits under this Bill to persons who have obtained exemption from insurance under the principal Act on the ground of it being unnecessary, is undesirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words
Provided that any person formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of this Act shall be deemed to have been engaged for the period aforesaid in such employment as aforesaid, although he has not in fact been so engaged.
This Amendment deals with a class of persons who are not only entitled to the sympathy of the House, but to their very special consideration. We have made provision in this Bill for the man in employment, and have said in substance, "If you are engaged a certain period during the past year, provision is made for you here." Then we have turned to the disabled soldier, and said, "There are special circumstances in connection with your case, and, equally, you are provided for." Then we have said to the soldier not disabled, "We recognise the difficulties of your case, and in certain circumstances we are making provision for you." All that is good and necessary, but there, is one class of persons entirely omitted, the class who, above all, ought to receive the sympathies of this House. It is the discharged soldier who has come back from the War, having been promised his job, and whose employer has disregarded his obligations. There are thousands of soldiers in that position who have found themselves discharged from the Army, returning to civil life, and unable to get any job whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I am told there are thousands who, from their discharge from the Army till this moment, have not done a day's work, and those who are most deserving of all sympathy are the very people who are not provided for in this Bill. The object of my Amendment is to see that these men are not only provided for, but that their war service for the country shall be counted, and they shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour attempts to meet the case in another way, which I frankly
recognise, but the difference between his method and mine is this. I say there ought to be no discrimination whatever. There is no room here for ambiguity, and I say that instead of meeting the position as my right hon. Friend proposes to meet it, by leaving it to the discretion of somebody, it should be provided in the Bill itself.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I fully sympathise, naturally, with what my right hon. Friend has said, and, of course, I do not wish any hardship inflicted upon these men, but I think, perhaps, he has not recognised the difficulties of my position. We make qualifications in the case of civilians and disabled ex-service, men, and give discretion to the local committee, and I do not see how we can differentiate in this case. I have Amendments on the Paper which, if carried, will make the Subsection read as follows:
In the application of the preceding Subsection to persons formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of this Act a period of not less than ten separate calendar weeks shall be substituted for a period of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks, and if in any particular case a person who has been engaged in war service satisfies the local employment committee that his failure to be employed for the periods required by this Section was in consequence of the present War and due to circumstances not within his own control or, in the case of a disabled person.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be satisfied that, in substance, my scheme is the same as his, and in practice will enable us to carry on as we are doing at present. I would very much prefer my Amendment, and I hope he will allow it to be taken.

Mr. THOMAS: There is very little difference between us, except this. Supposing an injustice is done; that is to say, a man appears before a local committee and his claim is not admitted.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is met in Subsection (3) which says:
If any question arises as to whether any person satisfies the foregoing requirements, the question shall be decided by the Minister,
and the Minister's decision, I may say, is final.

Mr. THOMAS: On the understanding that the provision will be fairly administered, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "where any," and insert instead thereof the words "if in any particular case a."

Leave out the words "is a disabled person within the meaning of this Act he shall, if he."

After the word "was" ["this section was due"] insert the words "in consequence of the present War and due to circumstances not within his own control or, in the case of a disabled person within the meaning of this Act, was."

Leave out the word "to" ["to be treated"], and insert instead thereof the words "that person may if the local employment committee so recommend."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "should" ["no person should"], and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a), after the word "employment" to insert the words, "such as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act.
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that these benefits shall be confined to workpeople normally belonging to one or other of the trades insured against unemployment under the Act.

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Additional benefit for ex-service men.)

If at any time during either of the special periods hereinafter in this Act mentioned any person, being a person who was formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of the Act, is in receipt of unemployment benefit, he shall while he is so in receipt of benefit be entitled to an additional benefit at the weekly rate of two shillings, and the cost of providing any additional benefit payable under this Section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the minis necessary for the purpose shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
The general benefit having been made 20s., I do not want this Clause, which provides the 2s. additional benefit, which the ex-service men have got.

Amendment a creed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Period of unemployment benefit.)

(1) Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which provides that no person shall receive unemployment benefit for a period of more than fifteen weeks or such other period as may be prescribed) shall as from the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, have effect as though twenty-six weeks were therein substituted for fifteen weeks.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or in this Act, no person shall he entitled to receive unemployment benefit in either of the special periods for a greater period in the aggregate than sixteen weeks.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "as from the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Treasury advances.)

(1) The Treasury may out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof advance any sums required for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of that fund under the principal Act as amended by this Act:
Provided that the total amount of advances outstanding at any time shall not exceed ten million pounds.
Any sums advanced under the foregoing provision, together with interest thereon at such rate as may be fixed by the Treasury, shall be charged on and be payable out of the Unemployment Fund.
(2) The Treasury may for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section or for the repayment to that fund of all or any part of sums so issued or for paying off any securities issued under this Section, so far as that payment is not otherwise provided for, borrow money by means of the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
(3) The principal of and interest on any securities issued under this Section shall be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, money in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt shall not be applied in purchasing, reducing or paying off any securities issued under this Section.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move in sub-section (1) to leave out the word "that" ["that fund"], and to insert
instead thereof the words "the unemployment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. As the Sub-section at present stands, the words "that fund" refers to the Consolidated Fund, whereas it should refer to the Unemployment Fund.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Provision for enabling associations to make arrangements under Section 17 of principal Act.)

(1) It shall be lawful for any association to make any such amendments in the instrument governing its constitution as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the association to become an association with which the Minister may make an arrangement under Section seventeen of the principal Act, and if the instrument regulating the constitution of the association contains provisions requiring any interval of time to elapse before any action can be taken that provision shall not apply to action taken for the purpose aforesaid.
(2) In this Section the expression "instrument" includes any Act, memorandum, articles of association, trust deeds, or rules.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" to insert the words "or for the purpose of enabling the association to include any class of its members within the scope of such an arrangement."
This is the first of a series of Amendments on this Clause, the object being to make the effect of the Clause clear in two respects. I wish to make it clear by the Amendment that the rules which an association may make may include that of bringing a branch of its members within the scope of Section 17 of the principal Act, and to make it clear that, in order to take advantage of the Clause, a general meeting of the association is not essential, but that a Council or other governing body of the association may take action. This will avoid the slow process of a delegate meeting, which would defeat the object of the Clause. These Amendments are all in the interest of the smooth working of the machinery.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: The Amendment would almost make the Clause read
as if to include any association not included in the principal Act.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. WILSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity of eliminating societies refusing to operate the Act. I think we ought to have it made perfectly clear that this Amendment will not include any association whether included in the Act or not.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not extending the scope of the principal Act. My hon. Friend knows quite well those who are to become our agents. I am not going beyond that at all. If there is any doubt about that matter I will have it looked into, and the proper correction made in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "that provision" ["that provision shall not Apply to action"], and insert instead thereof the words "or any amendment of the instrument can take effect, those provisions."

At the end of Sub-section (l) insert
(2) The powers by this Section conferred on an association may, notwithstanding anything in the instrument governing the constitution of the association, be exercised by the council or other governing body of the association." [Dr. Macnamara.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Minor Amendments.)

The amendments in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act (which relate to minor details), shall be made in the provisions of the principal Act specified in the first column of that Schedule.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and those Amendments shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of that Act."
The object of this Amendment is to make an exception in the case of permanent servants of the railway company. The matter is further dealt with in the Second Schedule, but I need this pre-
liminary Amendment to introduce what follows. This is necessary so that the action in the Schedule shall be retrospective.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(Construction, Saving, Short-title, Commencement, and Duration,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 41 of the Principal Act.)

Sub-section (2) of Section forty-one of the principal Act (which relates to the fixed number of contributions to be credited to seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged from the service after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty) shall have effect as if for the words "be ninety" there were therein substituted the words "in the case of men discharged before the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, be ninety and in the case of men discharged on or after that date be one hundred and fifty-six," and as though after the word "opinion" there were inserted the words "in either such case."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Section 41 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines discharged after 31st July, 1920, are credited with 90 unemployment contributions at the expense of the Service Department That was an arrangement which my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Clynes) will remember. This number of 90 contributions entitled them to 15 weeks' benefit and full insurance. The present Amendment increases the 90 contributions to 156 contributions, entitling to 26 weeks' benefit the men discharged on and after 3rd July, 1922.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.


Enactment to be Amended.
Nature of Amendment.


Section 17
…
…
…
For the words "is at least one-third greater than" in proviso (a) to Sub-section (1) there shall be substituted the words "exceeds by at least fire shillings per week "in the case of men, four shillings per week in the "case of women, two shillings and sixpence per week "in the case of boys, and two shillings per week in "the case of girls."


Section 18
…
…
…
In Sub-section (10) for the words "Sub-section (5) of this Section" there shall be substituted the words "Sub-section (7) of this Section."


Section 47
…
…
…
At the end of Sub-section (1) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:—



"(g) The expression 'day' moans a period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight or such other period of twenty-four hours as the Minister may for any general or special purpose prescribe."


First Schedule
…
…
In paragraph (d) of Part II. for the words "the employed person is not subject to dismissal" there shall be substituted the words "the persons employed are not "under the normal practice of the employer subject "to the risk of dismissal," and for the words "the "terms and conditions in which the employed person "is engaged" there shall be substituted the words "the employed person has completed throe years' "service in the employment, and that the terms and "conditions on which he was engaged and will "continue to be employed." and the following words shall be added at the end of the paragraph:—"Provided that where the employed person is not "under the terms of his contract subject to dismissal "except for misconduct or for neglect in the per "formance of, or unfitness to perform his duties, the "foregoing provision in respect to three years' service "shall not apply."


Second Schedule
…
…
In paragraph (6) for the words "so as to increase the "rate of benefit above seventeen shillings per week "for men, or above fourteen shillings per week for "women, or to reduce it below thirteen shillings per "week for men or below ton shillings per week for "women, or so as to increase the period of unemployment benefit above fifteen weeks" there shall be substituted the words "so as to increase the rate of "benefit above twenty shillings per week for men or "above sixteen shillings per week for women, or to "reduce it below fifteen shillings per week for men "or below twelve shillings per week for women, or so "as to increase the period of unemployment benefit "above twenty-six weeks."

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "First Schedule," to leave out the words
the employed person is not subject to dismissal" there shall be substituted the words "the persons employed are not under the normal practice of the employer subject to the risk of dismissal," and for the words "the terms and conditions in which the employed person is engaged" there shall be substituted the words "the employed person has completed three years' service in the
employment, and that the term* and conditions on which he was engaged and will continue to be employed.
and to insert instead thereof the words
the employment is in his opinion having regard to the normal practice of the employer permanent in character that the employed person has completed three years' service in the employment and that the other circumstances of his employment make it unnecessary that he should be insured under this Act.
I am not moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the paper making it unnecessary that under certain circumstances certain men should be insured under this Act. Instead of that I am proposing the Amendment I have read. I understand my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept it. The objects of these words is to practically give effect to this Amendment of the Act to what was the intention in the original Act. The House will remember that in the original Act it was clearly intended that railwaymen whose work was of a more permanent character than practically any other class of employés should be exempted from the provisions of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman and myself agreed to a Clause in that Bill that we were both satisfied would moot the position. Unfortunately, when the time arrived to give effect to the Clause, certain railway companies refused to accept it, or refused to give the undertaking that my right hon. Friend demanded. It is only fair to say that the three trade unions involved had themselves by agreement with the railway companies accepted the position. Therefore, the object of this Amendment is to make it perfectly clear what was in the original Act, and I am empowered to say, speaking at least for a number of the railway companies—I will not include them all—that they, as well as the trade unions, agreed to accept these words.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour looked over to me as though expecting or inviting me to say something. All I want to say on this matter is that it has not been before the Railway Companies' Association, of which I have the honour to be Deputy-Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is quite correct in saying some of the railway companies have agreed to this Amendment—I do not know how many—but I am also quite correct in saying that other of the railway companies have not agreed to it, and do not intend to.

Mr. T. WILSON: This, I take it, applies to other classes of persons besides those employed by railway companies. It applies to those who are employed by local or public authorities, to the police force, to servants of public utility companies, and to those who have the right to claim on superannuation funds. The point I want to make is
this: that in connection with public utility companies, and it may be other companies, and certainly in connection with local or other public authorities, a young man, sometimes to improve his position in life, leaves one company or authority and takes employment with mother. The result may be that in three years he has been in the. employment of three different public authorities. What these people are concerned about is whether the three years' service, with three different authorities, will be counted as three years' continuous employment. I think they are entitled to ask that the three years should come as continuous employment. Supposing a young fellow is employed by the Camberwell Borough Council, and he applies for a job under the Shoreditch Council, and after working there some time he gets a job under the Lambeth Council. What these people want is that their service under three public authorities shall count as three years' service, and if the right hon. Gentleman could make it clear that in granting exemptions from the payment of these contributions he will take this point into consideration it will be satisfactory. I think three years' continuous employment in the same class of work ought to cover that point.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Part II of the First Schedule of the main Act uses the term "excepted employment," and it means employment under any local authority or other public authority, or in the service of a railway company or public utility company, and so on. The governing phrase is, where the Minister certifies that the employed person is not subject to dismissal except for misconduct or neglect, or unfitness to perform his duties. But there is no provision for the case of dismissal because there is no work. There is no provision for that, and it might be that a person and being exempted for the reason stated here, might very well have a claim for wrongful dismissal. To remedy that the right hon. Gentleman substitutes the words of this Amendment. I was very hopeful that we should have got a common form, but I do not know any better words than those put forward by my right hon. Friend. I understand that there is some measure of disagreement on the part of some of the railway companies. With regard to what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T.
Wilson) has said and the case he gave of a man being a year under one local authority and going to another for another year and then doing another year under a third authority, I am afraid I cannot accept that proposal. If I did, anybody might say that, and then where is your Insurance Act? I think that is far too serious a proposal, because there is no limit to it. Anybody could come and say, "I want to be exempted," because they have been at three jobs. I see no other words to meet the position better than those suggested by. my right hon. Friend.

Mr. THOMAS: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman wants to know definitely what is the measure of agreement. When we came to apply the original Act the right hon. Gentleman met a deputation representing the railway companies and the whole of the unions involved. As we understood, and we have no reason to assume anything to the contrary, the representatives of the railway companies were speaking for the whole of the companies.

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Mr. THOMAS: That is the difficulty we, are always in with regard to these matters. All I wish to say is that there was no departure on that occasion from the arrangements we always make under the assumption that we are dealing with the whole of the railway companies. So far as we were concerned, we understood we were dealing with the whole of the railway companies, with the result that the Minister of Labour and ourselves arrived at an agreement. Immediately that agreement was made, and circularised to the men, a certain railway company took legal opinion. They went to counsel, and they said, "We want a legal opinion on this matter." You can always get a legal opinion when you are prepared to pay for it. That legal opinion said in substance that what my right hon. Friend and myself had agreed to was wrong. Then it was followed by another company saying, "We will not act in accordance with that agreement." When my right hon. Friend introduced this Bill he immediately consulted both sides, including the railway companies and ourselves, and he said, "Now is the opportunity to put this difficulty right." I
submit to the House that that was a common-sense method of dealing with the matter at the time when we were having an Amending Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman invited both sides to meet him. He invited the representatives of the whole of the railway company. We met again two days ago at the Ministry of Labour, and it was agreed that words should be drawn up to meet the situation. Those words were again agreed to, and afterwards, to the surprise of some of us, it was discovered that there was some objection to those words. The result was that afterwards we were told those words would not meet the position. What followed was that there were further negotiations yesterday and to-day between myself and the solicitor to the Railway Companies Association, and at 6.30 to-night I received a letter from the Railway Companies' Association solicitor, after I had sent him these words, informing me that they are perfectly satisfactory so far as the companies are concerned, and he confirms that opinion in writing. That is the measure of agreement. I knew the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) would disagree, but, speaking generally, there is an almost complete measure of agreement between the railway companies and ourselves. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Baronet says, he must do his worst, and we must face the consequences.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, I will not do my worst, I will endeavour to do my best. I have been in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour and some of his officials on this matter and I must say that I have been met in a conciliatory spirit. I regret we could not come to an agreement. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), in the first place I may inform the Committee that I am Deputy-Chairman of the Railway Companies' Association. I knew nothing about this till yesterday afternoon. I have seen Lord Churchill, the Chairman of the Association, and he too knew nothing about it. Mr. Andrews is not solicitor to the Railway Companies' Association. He has nothing whatever to do with it. He was solicitor to the London and North Western Railway Company, but he left that and is acting now for the Minister of Transport. He has no authority to net. for the Railway Association.

Mr. THOMAS: Or for the railway general managers?

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly not. The Council of the Railway Association has not been consulted. The Railway Association itself has not been consulted, neither have the Committee of Nine, of which I am a member—a Committee set up a year and a half to deal with various transport matters. I only mention these facts in order to show there has been a misunderstanding, which I hope will not occur in future. I must point out to the right hon. Member for Derby in the first place, that the Railway Companies' Association cannot act for the whole of the companies, even if the Railway Companies' Association agree, unless the Council also agree, and in no case can it do that unless the chairman and the deputy-chairman have been consulted. Mr. Andrews is not an official. Again, you cannot take the opinion of the general managers and say that they bind the companies. The general managers do not bind the Association. The only body which can bind the Association is the Council or, perhaps, in certain exceptional circumstances, the chairman and deputy chairman.

Mr. THOMAS: I only want to observe, so far as the country generally is concerned, they do not, I am sure, understand anything about the Railway Chairman, but they do know that the railways are generally controlled by the General Managers, and the House must judge for itself when I repeat that it is the General Managers of the railway companies that have entered into the negotiations which I have indicated, and entered into them at the request of the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides. As to whether they exceeded their duties, all I have to say is that the country generally assume it is not the Chairmen of the railway companies that run the companies, but it is the General Managers.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then they assume wrongly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph beginning "Second Schedule," leave out "twenty" ["benefit above twenty shillings"] and insert "twenty-two."

Leave out "sixteen" ["above sixteen shillings"] and insert "seventeen."

Leave out "fifteen" ["below fifteen shillings'] and insert "seventeen."

Leave out "twelve" ["below twelve shillings"] and insert "fourteen."— [Dr. Macnamara.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is there not a manuscript Amendment which has been handed in, still to be dealt with?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that we passed that by. I understood that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Derby was to take its place. It is too late to move it now, but it may be moved on Report.

Bill reported.

As amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments as to conditions for receipt of benefit.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every person who has been engaged at any time in each of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in any employment which made him, or which would, if the principal Act had been in force throughout the year nineteen hundred and twenty, have made him, an employed person within the meaning of that Act and who satisfies the other conditions prescribed by this Section shall, notwithstanding that the first statutory condition may not have been fulfilled in his case and notwithstanding Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act, but subject to the other provisions of the said Act as amended by this Act, be entitled to receive in each of the special periods hereinafter in this Act mentioned unemployment benefit for periods not exceeding in the aggregate in each of those periods sixteen weeks, and for the purpose of qualifying any person to receive benefit up to the aggregate amounts aforesaid within each of the special periods, but for no other purpose, there shall be treated as having been paid in respect of him such number of contributions as are sufficient to qualify him as aforesaid.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "provisions" ["subject to the provisions of this Section"], to insert the words
that in cases where, owing to industrial or other causes not under their control, any class or section of genuinely employed persons are unable to prove employment for twenty weeks, the local employment committee shall have discretion, subject to regulations to be made by the Minister, to dispense with a portion of the specified qualifying period and to the provisions.
I propose this Amendment in order to call the attention of the Minister for Labour to the condition of things which will ensue if the Bill passes as it stands at present, and which will cause great hardship to many deserving people. In the City of Belfast there are a very considerable number of men, mostly moulders' labourers, in the shipyards and other public works. In consequence of the moulders' strike—they were not strikers themselves—they were, during a period of last year, out of employment. At the end of July, or in the middle of August, they were again driven from their employment by political and religious causes. This will prevent them from having the legal status of 20 calendar weeks' employment within the year, and as a result they will not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. I wish to cover the case of these men, and I would have proposed that the qualifying number of weeks should be reduced in order to do so, but the Minister for Labour informed me that he would not agree to that. In view of the tremendous hardship that would be wrought upon these people, who have been placed in this position through no fault of their own, I appeal to the Minister for Labour to accept the Amendment, and in so doing to meet what I am sure he will agree is a position of considerable hardship and of exceptional importance to these parties.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: I want to associate myself with the Amendment. I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman not being disposed to accept any reduction in the 20 weeks, and I think a genuine effort should be made, in the terms of the Amendment, to meet the specific case which my hon. Friend has in mind of the workmen of Belfast. It is fairly safe to use the argument that if these words are inserted in the Bill they will probably not apply to any section of workers in this country, and that they will therefore really relate to the situation as it exists in Belfast. However, should the argument be used that once they are in the Bill the words will apply to anyone in this country, as well as to the workmen in Ireland, the answer is that the cases would be so few and the instances so rare that no real administrative difficulty will
be occasioned. It will simply be a matter for the agents and representatives of the Labour Minister, in different parts of the country, to deal with and identify the particular cases which properly should come under the terms of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that a very strong case does exist for generous and sympathetic treatment of those men whom my hon. Friend has in mind. They have suffered, in a double sense, very severely, indeed, and, as the words of the Amendment say, through causes over which they have no control. First of all, they suffered from the general bye-products and effects of the moulders' strike. Though many of us here may have forgotten that strike, as being merely as one of those recurring unhappy labour disputes which arise year by year, there is a considerable number of working men in this country and in Ireland who will remember it for reasons which occasioned them a good deal of suffering and loss. Amongst them are those men of Belfast, labourers who were thrown out of work without being parties to the dispute.
They never started it and they never finished it. They were its victims. They suffered throughout it. and long after it had terminated. The strength of their case is double, when you remember that later on in the year, owing to what may be termed political reasons or reasons of religious differences, these men, again through no fault of their own, suffered long periods of unemployment. I suggest that that double suffering during 1920 has created a very special case for a body of men of this kind. If administrative difficulties be urged as an argument, they cannot be said to be great enough to justify the infliction of such injustice on many who have already suffered in the double sense to which I have referred. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I hope, if this Amendment, which is purely, intentionally, obviously and clearly a political Amendment of the worst kind, is accepted that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been so very considerate during the whole time he has been in charge of the Bill, will allow us a further chance of inserting some other kind of amendment enabling unemployment benefit to be given to those people who, from time to time, find themselves out of work or unable to get into work because of the rules and regulations
laid down by the trade unions. If you are going to make these exceptions in one case, as has been advocated in this particular instance, further exceptions in regard to equally good and equally honourable men should be made if necessary.

Mr. CLYNES: Mention one.

Lieut-Commander WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to mention one. I will take one of fairly common knowledge, though he may not have heard of it. There is the case of the people who wish to get into the builders trade. I do not think that is a thing to which ever the Labour party, whose credit is not very high in the country at the present moment, need wish to draw attention. If the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill accepts this Amendment, as he possibly may, I hope he will extend its benefits to other people who do not possess the same support as the particular section on behalf of whom this Amendment is moved, and whose intention it is to help.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This originates, of course, from a very old disability in respect of unemployment insurance, under Section 8, Sub-section (1) of the main Act. I am not now dealing with the local aspect of the matter, as stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin), I am dealing with the main position. It is a position which my right hon. Friend has always resisted, but I think it is carrying it a little too far to try and get that position upset by means of a side issue on an occasion like this. From the date of the first Insurance Act down to last year's Act, we have had these discussions about the disability that will fall, under Section 8 (1), upon an insured contributor who has lost his employment through a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute of which, it is contended quite truly, he himself is merely a victim. Last year, both in Committee and here in the House, I had words submitted to me with the object of trying to obviate this injustice and hardship without creating an even greater one, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that in such a matter the course of equity and justice is not altogether easy to find. I said that if the two parties concerned, namely, the representatives of employers and of organised labour,
got together and submitted to me a form of words which the Ministry of Labour people would agree to be workable—and we would not place gratuitous or vexatious obstacles in the way—I would do my best to get them into the Bill. I have not had that form of words, but my offer still stands. If the representatives of employers and employed get together and give me a form of words which will remove this disability upon the man who has nothing to do with a strike, but who loses his unemployment insurance in consequence thereof, and which, on the other hand, will not permit the payment of unemployment benefit to people who are really sympathising with and taking part in the dispute, I shall be ready to accept it.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not want to discuss the general question now, but I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman's offer is really valueless, because the other side began by saying that they would agree to no such form of words, for the reason that it would be subsidising men taking part in a trade dispute.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not have raised that point if my right hon. Friend had not spoken of this local disability under which these men rest. As regards Section 8 (1) of the main Act, I do not think that, on the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and raised for the purpose for which he raised it, we are entitled at this juncture, and in an amending Bill of this sort, to raise the main issue, namely, how far it is fair to place a disqualification upon a man as a result of a strike for which he. is not in any sense responsible, and with which he is not connected. That is the issue which my right hon. Friend raised, and I was rather sorry that he did so. The hon. Member for Falls says that the fact that these men were thrown out of employment because of an industrial dispute, and have been subsequently kept out for other reasons, about which I do not know, and which I will not go into, as I do not want to inflame passions, will prevent them from qualifying by proving 20 weeks' employment. He does not say that I ought to move an Amendment at large reducing the period of 20 weeks, but he asks me to invest the local employment committee with the same discretion in regard to civilians with which we have
already invested them with regard to ex-service men. That really goes too far. What I can and will do—it may not be worth much, but at any rate it shows my good will—is this. I do not know whether it is possible in any way to look at the case of these men on its merits, and see whether the existing Regulations, or the Regulations as they will be amended by this Bill, can be interpreted so as to cover their case fairly and reasonably If that should be so, and if the court of referees and umpire agree, I shall have nothing to say against it. I really cannot, however, place the question of this qualifying period of 20 weeks in the hands of the local committee, to say that, if circumstances justify such a course, it will not be enforced. That is going too far.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any other method?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not want to raise hopes that may not materialise. I cannot say whether it will be possible, taking the existing rules under Section 8 (1) of the main Act—with which I am not altogether happy—or under the amending measure that we are now bringing in. If it is possible fairly and squarely to meet these cases, they shall be met, but I cannot give an undertaking that it is possible; and I am very sorry that it is quite impossible for me to extend the scope of this Bill along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. MOLES: Two very important admissions have been made by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, as I gathered, he offers, upon the general question, that if representatives of employers and employés will get together, and devise a common formula which will meet the case of men out of work through a strike which is no fault of their own, and with which they may have no sympathy, he will accept that formula.

Dr. MACNAMARA: If it be workable.

Mr. MOLES: I presume that a common formula would not be arrived at unless it were workable. That is a very important admission, and one of which, I hope, those who constitute themselves the special guardians of the interests of Labour will take note.

Mr. WATERSON: And the other side. We had an illustration of it before you came in.

Mr. MOLES: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make my own case. I hope we shall not see imitated the example of the leader of the Labour party, who suggested that the other side would not meet them. When each side resorts to arguments of that kind, the interests of the workers will have to suffer.

Mr. CLYNES: I never alleged that the employers would not meet us. The employers did met us. What I said I repeat, namely, that the employers refused to agree to any kind of formula, and declared that to make the change we desired would mean subsidising workmen engaged in disputes. We are ready to agree to a formula if they will, but they absolutely refused.

Mr. MOLES: Wherein does that differ from what I have just stated? In response to the offer of the Minister of Labour, the right hon. Gentleman says, "You need not make that offer; the other side are impossible—there is no dealing with them." The employers make precisely the same case against them, and that is the attitude of which I complain, namely, that each of the parties considers the other impossible. You will never get any common formula as long as that remains the attitude of any one of the parties. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falls would not make the proposition which he made in his Amendment if it were merely the case of Belfast that is concerned. I am sure he would be concerned as I am with the interest of workers outside that area and over a far wider area. If I understood the Minister of Labour aright, the position he takes up in response to that appeal is that he will be prepared to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, and if that Committee of Inquiry, upon examination of all these facts relating to the moulders' strike came to the conclusion that it is a case that ought to be treated apart upon the special and clamant grounds that surround it, there again he would come to the rescue, and deal with it upon the merits.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I said if under these Regulations as they will be amended
when the Bill becomes law, taking expert advice, a case is made, I will do my best to meet it.

Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me a moment too soon. I cannot make all the case in one sentence. That is what I was coming to. I frankly recognise that he has not the power at the moment. I was speaking of the position which would be created on the assumption that the Bill goes through. I think I have rightly interpreted his mind that if that happens, and the Committee of experts which he suggests makes the recommendation that he contemplates, he would meet it. Am I correct in that view? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I would rather have my answer from the Minister himself.

Mr. HAYDAY: He said nothing of a Committee of experts.

Mr. MOLES: He has just said it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: On this question of interpretation, where disqualification really arises, those are the people I am talking about.

Mr. MOLES: That is exactly what I meant. What I want to get from the Minister is this. What is his attitude of mind towards this? I take it it is sympathetic, and, if so, he will have the entire support of the House in that view.

Sir ALLAN SMITH: I very much regret that there has been such an irresponsible observation made on the attitude either of employers or of trade union leaders in connection with the discussion which has taken place on this subejct. I was very much concerned in this discussion. It is a very difficult point, and one of very real importance in connection with the whole structure of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The employers and the trade unions sat down, not once, but on several occasions, with a full desire to

arrive at a satisfactory solution and at the same time to maintain the general principle on which the Bill is based, and to suggest that cither party adopted a dictatorial attitude in connection with this point is to speak in absolute ignorance, not only of the facts, but of the intentions of both sides to that discussion when the discussion took place.

Mr. MOLES: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is alluding to me or not. If he is, the only observation I can make about it is that the comment that I offered was based upon an observation that came from the leader of the Labour party. The observation was made in the hearing of the House, and it was to the effect that the attitude of the employers was perfectly impossible. The hon. Gentleman ought to direct his criticism there, and not to me.

Sir A. SMITH: I was not addressing my criticism to the hon. Member. I suggest that we should realise that this point is one of extraordinary difficulty which cannot be settled off-hand, and will never be settled if there is any suggestion that either side is going to sit down to a discussion with no intention of settlement at all. The point that is raised is fundamental to the 1911 and 1920 Acts, and to have that fundamental principle modified in an amending Bill which is brought in solely for the purpose of meeting a temporary difficulty by creating an addition to the benefits under that Bill would be out of the question altogether. I rose to draw attention to the fact that the spirit which inspires the two sides to industry at the moment is not such as has been indicated in the discussion.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 122.

Division No. 9]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Wldnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hirst, G. H.
Taylor, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Irving, Dan
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Johnstons, Joseph
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
Lawson, John J.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Devlin and Mr. Swan.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Forrest, Walter
Moles, Thomas


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gange, E. Stanley
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gardiner, James
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, James C.
Nail, Major Joseph


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Neal, Arthur


Barlow, Sir Montague
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hanna, George Boyle
Oman, Sir Charles William [...].


Bell, Lieut. Col W c. H. (Devizes)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Blgland, Alfred
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Higham, Charles Frederick
Rankin, Captain James S.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Renwick, George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Britton, G. B.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jephcott, A. R.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sugden, W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferre[...]


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Vickers, Douglas


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Waddington, R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Wallace, J.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Lorden, John William
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lynn, R. J.
Winterton, Major Earl


Doyle, N. Grattan
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wise, Frederick


Edgar, Clifford B.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Young, Lieut.-Com. F. H. (Norwich)


Evans, Ernest
Manville, Edward



Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mason, Robert
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, William Lane
Ward.

SECOND SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.


Enactment to be Amended.
Nature of Amendment.


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


First Schedule
…
…
In paragraph (d) of Part II.





*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, before the words "In paragraph (d,)" to insert
In paragraph (a) of Part I, after the word 'implied,' there shall be inserted the words 'and whether the employed person works on the premises of the employer or at home or elsewhere.'
This Amendment is moved with the object of including that large body of workers called out or home workers. They are covered by the National Health Insurance Act and their contributions are stopped and must be paid by the
person who employs them. Many hon. Members come from constituencies where this kind of employment is still carried on to a very large extent. In some localities the person goes direct to the factory or workshop and collects the work that has to be finished or the material that has to be made up and takes it to her home and there performs whatever task is allotted to her. In other cases middlemen or middle-women enter in as contractor between the employer and the home or out-worker and when the work is completed by the out-worker
it is collected and finds its way back into the factory or warehouse. This body of workers are covered in the main by various trades boards in those industries which were looked upon years ago as being of a most sweating character. The wages are now fixed, and as these workers come under the National Health Insurance Act, and as their employment fluctuates in accordance with general trade prosperity or depression, we submit that they ought not to be excluded from unemployment insurance. We ask that the employed person, whether employed at a factory or workshop, at home or elsewhere, should be included for unemployment insurance just as they are included for national health insurance. We feel that they ought not to be set aside and segregated from the general body of industrial workers, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment to the Schedule.

Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Paragraph (a) of Part I. of the First Schedule of the principal Act, to which this Amendment relates, says:
Employment in the United Kingdom, whether under contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether ex-prossed or implied.
I doubt very much whether out-workers are under a contract of service. Even if it were timely and expedient and possible to deal with this matter now— and I must say that it is not—I do not see how I could accept this Amendment. These people do not work under such a contract as is described. If these outworkers were to be admitted to unemployment insurance I should have to arrange for domiciliary visits in order to see whether they were employed on a particular day or not. The hon. Member is trying to insure against unemployment, people who are working at home. I do not see that the hon. Member has submitted a proposition as to how that could be done.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could find that out through the stamping of the cards for Insurance Act purposes.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot take that as evidence of employment or otherwise, and I am afraid we should be committed
to a system of domiciliary visits to verify whether an outworker did any work on a particular day. Surely in a Bill which is frankly to meet an emergency, what my right hon. Friend with his great desire to do something for these people now proposes is quite impracticable. I do not think these people as a rule are under any contract or service and in any case I do not think the present is the appropriate time.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I am sorry the Minister for Labour has made the decision he has without giving at least some promise to make some investigation as to whether it would be possible later on, under some Regulation or another, to bring in this class of worker. I do not think the difficulties are so great as he imagines, because it is certain that the employer who regularly engages to have his labour performed by out-workers must know perfectly well whether he distributes sufficient of that work or whether the worker performs a sufficient amount of the work to make it full-time employment or only partial employment. I make my protest against the decision of the Minister largely for this reason, that this is a form of employment mostly indulged in by aliens and others engaged in the East End of London and in some of the poorer districts of our large industrial centres. It means that this form of labour is going to be subsidised to a certain extent as against the ordinary, decent employer, who concentrates his work in proper workshops that can be inspected by the Department both for the purpose of legislation and for the purpose of insurance. You are, so to speak, giving a subsidy to this class of employer to escape the Regulations that are so necessary if our legislation is to be effected.
If the Minister's statement were accurate that the difficulties of inspection and the difficulties of paying domiciliary visits to the homes of these out-workers, make it impossible for this class of legislation to be applied to such workers, it almost suggests that the House of Commons ought to go a step further and prevent this class of labour altogether. What is the situation? Take for instance the ready-made tailoring trade and trades of that description. Employers will begin to find it infinitely better to have the whole of their work done in the homes of the
workers rather than engage proper work-rooms where proper supervision can be maintained by the Factory Department, and you are giving an advantage to that form of employment because the employer will be exonerated from paying unemployment insurance for his workers. While I quite agree it is difficult at a time like this to make the necessary alterations in the structure of the Bill so as to include this class of worker, that

does not suggest the Minister ought to give such an unsympathetic reply to the appeal of my hon. Friend above the Gangway. At least he should hold out some hope that sooner or later this class of labour will be dealt with and brought within the purview of ordinary industrial legislation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 116.

Division No. 10.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Glanville, Harold James
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major M. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Seddon, J. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Swan, J. E.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cape, Thomas
Jephcott, A. R.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Waterson, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Wignall, James


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John J.



Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mills, John Edmund
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.


Finney, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Shaw.


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)





NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Forrest, Walter
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gange, E. Stanley
Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gould, James C.
Nall, Major Joseph


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Neal, Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hanna, George Boyle
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustln
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Higham, Charles Frederick
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, D. D.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Renwick, George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Gulldford)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Britton, G. B.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bruton, Sir James
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sugden, W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Johnstone, Joseph
Taylor, J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Vickers, Douglas


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd, George Butler
Waddington, R.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Waring, Major Walter


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lynn, R. J.
Williams, Lieut. Com. C. (Tavlstock)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wlnterton, Major Earl


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wise, Frederick


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Edgar, Clifford B.
Manville, Edward
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Evans, Ernest
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Young, Lieut. Com. E. H (Norwich)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mason, Robert



Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mitchell, William Lane
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moles, Thomas
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley




Ward.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. CLYNES: Some of us had an opportunity on the Second Reading of this Bill to speak in general terms us to its provisions. Really the Bill has little relation to the magnitude of the problem with which it purposes to deal. I will refer to only one aspect of the change produced in the Bill in Committee. The 18s. benefit has been raised to 20s. That is a round sum, and if only for that reason it will carry a certain sense of satisfaction to those who have to receive it. I should not advise a vote against the Third Heading of the Bill, because of the slight advance that has boon secured in respect of the benefit, and because we have no desire to be opposed to these payments of benefits in the case of those who are compulsorily unemployed. In the absence of work a man must have some degree of maintenance, and, for the time being this is as much as we can secure. During our Debates, I grieve to say that a few hon. Members have revealed what might fairly be termed an extraordinary aversion from trade unions. It is to me a most unaccountable hostility, and I should say it is due to a lack of association with those bodies, and to little knowledge of what they stand for and what they do. It appears to me that some hon. Members are led to mistaken conclusions because they judge trade unions generally by some few lapses or by an isolated instance of a misdeed, as they may regard it, and they conclude that the work of these organisations has been for the hurt of the industry of the country and not for the general good of the great mass of the population. If we had not had trade unions, and if the workmen during the last 50 or more years had not had the support and protection of trade unions, it would have been a case of God help the workmen of England! To that statement I do not want to add more at this stage.
I must refer briefly to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the South Croydon Division (Sir A. Smith). I am not quite sure whether he was in the House when T referred to some, observation of the Minister of Labour. My right hon. Friend said (hat he previously had made an offer—by which I suppose he still stands—that if the two parties,
the organised employers and the organised workmen, could agree upon a formula and bring it to him, and it was found to be workable, he would agree to some amendment of the law whereby a workman who is thrown idle through a dispute over which he has no control, and in respect of which he is merely a victim, would have a claim for unemployment benefit.

Dr. MACNAMARA: indicated assent.

Mr. CLYNES: That offer was valueless-for the reason that when the employers met us they declined to agree to any such formula or to accept the principle of agreeing to any such formula, on the ground that if they did so it would, in their opinion, be subsidising from State funds men who were on strike. If I am wrong in my statement I am only happy, for I should have to conclude that my hon. Friend, who speaks in this House in a representative capacity in respect of organised employers, is disposed to continue his efforts, with the object of agreeing to some formula of this sort. I should like, therefore, to have some clear understanding as to where we are. Probably at some future time—it may be before very long—this Act will again have to be reviewed, and one would like an opportunity of seeking an Amendment of the Act in that very important particular. I trust, therefore, we can resume our discussion with representative employers in the hope of the two sides being able to agree upon a formula which will be acceptable to the Minister of Labour. I think we should have from the representative of the Government a confession of the mistakes made in this House some months ago, when we from this side alleged that the only bodies which could effectively and appropriately work an Act of this kind were the trade unions. The House will recall that we had a very heated controversy, and I believe that because of this attitude of hostility in this House against the trade unions many men went into the Lobby against the views which we expressed on this side and supported the idea that the bodies more appropriate and able to deal with this question were the great friendly societies of the country. Although the House at that time was against us, and although the supporters of the Government—I do not. say on that occasion led
by the Government—in the main were able to produce such a majority as to defeat the trade union idea and place the friendly societies in the position of being able to administer this Act, what has experience shown? Experience has shown the mistake of those hon. Members who would not follow the advice of Labour and thought they knew more than the representatives of Labour on that particular question, and I should be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend, if he has time to speak, to what extent, if any at all, the Friendly Societies themselves have found it possible to administer any part of this Act. As I understand, very little, if any, has been done. I would like also to say that the attitude and action, as reported to many of us, of the representatives of the Ministry of Labour in connection with some Employment Exchanges in different parts of the country has given rise to rather embittered feeling as between certain trade unions and the local representatives of the right hon. Gentleman. That is a matter for regret, and I am sure.—

Dr. MACNAMARA: On this point?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, on this point of administration, and even on other points with regard to the payment of benefit during these periods when there has been such an excess of unemployment and, therefore, certain difficulties of administration. I think he will agree that it is essential for the purposes of satisfactory administration that the very best relations should exist between these representatives of the Employment Exchanges and the representatives of the various trade unions. The two have a common interest in this matter, and I regret to hear that here and there there has been conflict. I submit to my right hon. Friend the point that it is advisable as far as possible to simplify administration, to burn up as much red tape as you can, and to make the administration of this Act approximate to the ordinary workman's mind of how this kind of job should be done. I leave this Bill with the statement that it really does not touch the fringe of the great problem of unemployment, but at the same time with the statement that we are thankful that the House has seen its way to amend it in some small degree. That Amendment has once again proved that the House of Commons is seen at its
best when it is brought in touch with some great problem such as this condition of unemployment presents to the House.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I should like, as one who, to a certain extent, was responsible for getting through the Amendment on the last Insurance Act dealing with the admission of the friendly societies, to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it was we supported that Amendment. We supported it without knowing in the least whether the friendly societies would accept the obligation or not. As an actual fact, they have not done so. On the whole, they have done nothing. But we supported that Amendment for one reason—because we did not think it right that this House should pass an Act of Parliament in such a form as to force the labouring population of this country into trade unions in order that they might get these benefits. As the original Bill stood, a man was either forced to be a trade unionist or to go to the Labour Exchange, and, as the right hon. Gentleman, I think, will admit, there is a very great distaste amongst a large portion of the population to appearing at the Labour Exchange. Therefore, in order that we might preserve individual liberty, we introduced this alternative, of which a man might avail himself, and of which the friendly societies might avail themselves. It was entirely done with that object, and not from any dislike of trade unionism. I should be the first to decry any prejudice at all against trade unions. I think I may say that, in the course of my life, I have done a good deal more for trade unionism than some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment was brought forward entirely from the point of view of allowing free choice to the individual workman, and I think in saying that I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Members on this side who voted for the Amendment.
As regards the Bill itself, if this Third Reading were carried to a division, I should myself vote for it, not because I think the Bill is founded on any principles which can endure, or can do any real good in the long run, but the crisis has become so acute that it has to be met for a few weeks with doles. The Bill itself, and the doles which it provides, will undoubtedly add to the unemployment in the country, inasmuch as every pound taken out of industry and devoted to unproductive payments, such as this Bill
provides, means that there is so much less capital employed in industry, and do what you will, dodge and contrive as you will, you cannot get round that difficulty. It is quite impossible. Unemployment, in one of its aspects, is due to lack of capital—a famine in capital. There is not capital enough to afford labour a proper return, and any Act, any provision or any policy which increases that famine of capital must inevitably increase unemployment. Will my hon. Friends opposite believe me in what I am now going to say? I am actuated not by enmity whatsoever to trade unionism, but I do hope they will follow what I am going to say, and if it is false or illogical, then no harm is done; but, personally, I believe it to be actually the fact that the present state of industry in this country, with the crisis of unemployment, has now become a thing in which the capitalist and the employer is outside. It has become a fight between those men who are employed and those men who are not employed. The men who are employed are fighting to maintain the standard of living to which they have become accustomed during the last few years, and, in order to maintain that standard, they must keep a very large number of their fellow-men out of employment.
It all comes back to the hopeless Marxian fallacy, that the value of commodities depends entirely upon the amount of labour in their production, which, unfortunately, has got again into the minds of many people, and, owing to the fact that the fallacies of Karl Marx were so obvious, very few economists have taken the trouble to refute them. That theory of values is the basis of the policy of consolidation and crystallisation of wages, which has been the trade union policy for many years past, and which is still the policy of the Labour party. If you consider the matter you will see that there can never be a total cessation of the danger of unemployment until wages are based entirely on the real value of the product. The real value of the product is a measure, not of labour, but of the demand of those who might be possible purchasers. The experiment that I have made in my own works is all leading up to that question of the liquidation of wages, and the time when the whole profit of the employer is eliminated, as it will be in my own case, and so simplify the problem. We shall then see the
exact basis of the system, and wages will fluctuate exactly with the real value of the product, that is to say, with the demand for the product. Then we shall see this condition—where men work for full time during the week and at the end of a week go home, one with 5s. and another with 2s. in his pocket.
Under these circumstances, if there is no limit to the depths to which wages may sink there can be no unemployment. Take the opposite policy, which has produced the present crisis and the crystallisation of wages. Wages have been solidified owing to trade union action, and— I must say—the action of the Labour Ministry as well, to a size which industry can no longer boar, and we get this very serious condition that the men who are in work are struggling to maintain the standard of living, and thus solidifying wages at the present time, and are really putting themselves in competition with their unfortunate follow men out of work. If hon. Members work that out in their own minds, if I may in all modesty suggest it, I think they will see really—and I do not say this in any sense of antagonism to trade unions—that again in this case they have been deceived, and have got a problem owing to taking for gospel the words of that father of lies, Karl Marx.

Mr. ACLAND: I did not desire to intervene in this Debate, for I know there are many Members here much more qualified to take part in it. But I have listened carefully, and one thing more than anything else has impressed me. as the Debate has progressed, and that is that, whether the amount of benefit be 18s. or 48s., it would be infinitely better to provide work. I am the representative of one of those constituencies in which, unfortunately, unemployment cannot be regarded as a passing phase to be bridged over, more or less inadequately, by schemes of benefit. Unemployment to the great mass of the people engaged in the industry has come, I am afraid, absolutely for good. The Cornish tin mines have closed once and for all. The industry has been killed by the high price of coal necessary for the mines on the other side of the Bristol Channel. In my own constituency there are 1,500 families who will never get into work again. The younger men have gone abroad. The older men cannot move, the Cornishmen find it very
difficult to move: he is not easily turned away from his home. There is evidence of distress which cannot be alleviated, unless and until real permanent work can be found. I am not urging that special provision should be made for those whom I represent, and there must be other cases. After listening to the Debate it seemed to me a duty that anybody who had any particular knowledge or connection with even one of the smaller Departments in which actual work could be found should say what he knew about it.
I listened for two hours last night, and I heard several hon. Members say, quite rightly, that work should be found. Other hon. Members asked "How?" and the answer was by reclamation, afforestation, and other things. The position in regard to forestry is this: Let me say what it can do and what it cannot do. The Forestry Commission has got to work, and it has been established for 18 months. This House provided the Forestry Commissioners with £3,500,000 to last them for 10 years. During that time they have to work out their policy, collect their staff, make surveys of land, enter into negotiations for the purchase of land, acquire the land, lay down planting plants, and start planting. There has never been any sort of difficulty from the point of view of the landowners. It is perfectly easy to get as much of the best land as we want, extraordinarily cheap. Owners have been very patriotic in taking less than full values. We have 70,000 acres by lease or purchase now at about £3 an acre freehold or 2s. 6d. leasehold. There is no difficulty, and the land monopoly does not come in at all. Eight thousand acres will be planted by the end of next month or during the planting season this winter.
I know that is a small thing compared with the total of the unemployed in the country, but I should think this has given employment to something like 1,500 men. In reply to a request we received from the Minister of Labour, we put forward a scheme to provide extra employment. The planting season is now at an end, but we did put forward a scheme of fencing, road-making and clearing land in rather scattered districts far from the main centres of unemployment. These schemes required special hutting, involving more expense than if they had been
done in the course of our ordinary development, but they have given employment for another 1,000 men. These schemes are still under consideration. I am not bringing forward any partisan criticism, but at any rate we did our best.
If the House does wish afforestry to progress in this country it can only be done by a policy of gradual expansion. Do not think it possible suddenly to get a big expansion; it can only be brought about by a steadily progressive scheme; it cannot provide a great deal of employment in an emergency. We are now planting by arithmetical progress; increasing the number of acres dealt with year by year by something like 3,000. That progress can be accelerated if more money is made available for the purpose. We can add if necessary, 6,000 acres a year but not if we are to get money to dispose of suddenly, the money must be steadily added to our fund so that we may steadily expand our programme I should like the House to realise that the national work of afforestation really means that it costs £10 per acre to plant the land. It gives employment during the winter when employment is most wanted, and it is a very great help to smallholders who are hard put to it at that time to find employment. In from 50 to 70 years time you find that your £10 expenditure has produced a crop worth from £80 to £110, less, of course, than might be produced by investing the money at compound interest, but whereas, in order to make money at compound interest, every farthing of that interest has to be pulled out of the pocket of the wretched taxpayer, under this scheme the interest has not to be found by pulling at the taxpayer or anything of that kind. but the increment arising from afforestry is Nature's increment alone. The Afforestry Commission now has a staff which can deal equally well with a programme of 101,000 acres as one of 8,000 acres a year. The land is there. I thought the House would be interested to know the position we are in. I hope that the Cabinet Committee, or whatever body is looking into these matters, will allow us to make the small contribution which under present circumstances it is in our power to make, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise that even if it be small it is desirable, to substitute wherever it is possible actual work—
which I am sure men would rather do for a payment, be it £l or £2, or whatever it may be without work.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: I rise to express the thanks of the hon. Members on this side of the House to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) for the extremely illuminating lecture he has favoured us with on the Marxian theory. There is a character in Dickens who on every conceivable occasion saw the head of King Charles. I venture to suggest to the hon. Member that, unless he gets rid of the bugbear of Karl Marx, he is in very great danger of arriving at the mental state of the late lamented Mr. Dick. There is something in this problem at the moment quite different from any thing contemplated by economists, either of the Karl Marx or any other type. At the present moment two-thirds of Europe is doing nothing. International trade is so complicated and so intertwined that when a considerable part of the Continent has its industrial system dislocated—

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: By Karl Marx.

Mr. SHAW: I merely want to repeat my warning as to the extreme danger of getting a thing so firmly fixed in one's mind that on every conceivable occasion one trots it out. I expect to hear, when we have an Education Bill or a Licensing Bill the heresies of Karl Marx exposed. Really, however, is not this too serious a thing to make our own individual bogies the sole subject of discussion. If unemployment is to be cured, the best way to do so is to act in a manner that will bring the industries of Europe back to work as quickly as possible, so that the articles we cannot produce in this country shall flow to us, and the things that we can produce shall go to the countries which are badly in need of them. That is the real essence of the subject. In my opinion we have the best body of workmen in any country in the world. I have seen the workmen in many countries, and I know some little of one type of worker. I spent nearly 30 years in a trade myself, and I have seen workers in that trade in many lands. I assert, without hesitation, that I have never seen a body of workmen so efficient as our own.
If the employers will work as hard and as efficiently as the workmen; if they will say to the workmen, "Give us of your best and we will give you of our best, if improvements are introduced and you will
help in the development, we will agree not to cut your rates and not to take advantage," that will be a step forward in the industry of the country that has never been equalled in the world. Industry at the present time, after the War, is in a condition in which progress is rapidly being made. The War taught us many things. It did more to develop inventive capacity than would have been possible during 25 years of peace. It is for the House of Commons and the Government to help in every possible way, not only to secure peace so that commercial intercourse between nations may take place, but to assist research and scientific development, and so bring our country to the position in which it ought to be on the basis of the best working-class population in the world. Given good faith, given good, clean, straight dealing, and above and beyond all, a policy that will lead to a sound and satisfactory peace, with diplomacy that is open, so that the people know what is being done in their name—given these things, then, bad as the condition of affairs is now, the next few years will see a development that will lead to the happiness and contentment of the working population of this country.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This Bill is an endeavour to meet the present emergency by providing two periods of sixteen weeks' benefit, firstly from now to the end of October, and then from that time to-the end of next June, and to provide them upon qualifications which are especially suited to the condition in which our people find themselves to-day. It raises the weekly benefit in the case of men from 15s. to 20s., and in the case of women from 12s. to 16s., and that is done in advance of the increase in contribution, which cannot take place until 4th July, 1921, while the benefits will be increased as soon as we can get this measure going. It also permanently raises the total benefit which may be enjoyed from 15 weeks under the existing Act to 26 weeks. It provides in one way and another for cases in which relief may be necessary without any qualifying period between now and the end of June, 1922. All this has been possible largely because of the accumulation of funds due to the full employment during the War, and to the payment of unemployment donation by the Government since the Armistice. I should like, in asking the
House to give a Third Heading to the Bill, to say that I and the Parliamentary Secretary fully appreciate that we have had two days' valuable, informed, and kindly discussion of this Bill; and, as Minister of Labour, I very greatly appreciate the spirit of helpfulness which has generally pervaded our Debates during these two days.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Eleven o'clock.